ReviewHuman brain mapping2025
Limitations of Correlation Coefficients in Research on Functional Connectomes and Psychological Processes.
Review in Human brain mapping, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Limitations of Correlation Coefficients in Research on Functional Connectomes and Psychological Processes.Human brain mapping · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In neuroscience and psychology research, the Pearson correlation coefficient is widely used for feature selection and model performance evaluation, particularly in studies examining relationships between brain activity and psychological behavior indices. However, when predicting psychological processes using connectome models, the Pearson correlation has three main limitations: (1) it struggles to capture the complexity of brain network connections; (2) it inadequately reflects model errors, especially in the presence of systematic biases or nonlinear error; and (3) it lacks comparability across datasets, with high sensitivity to data variability and outliers, potentially distorting model evaluation results. To better assess model performance, it is crucial to combine multiple evaluation metrics, such as mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean square error (MSE), which capture different aspects of model quality. Additionally, baseline comparisons, such as using the mean value or a simple linear regression (LR) model, provide an essential reference for evaluating the added value of more complex models. This approach offers a more robust and comprehensive analysis of functional connectomes and psychological processes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.