Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40799715›Full record

ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2023

Harmonizing and aligning M/EEG datasets with covariance-based techniques to enhance predictive regression modeling.

Apolline Mellot, Antoine Collas, Pedro L C Rodrigues, Denis Engemann, Alexandre Gramfort

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Apolline MellotUniversité Paris-Saclay, Inria, CEA, Palaiseau, France.
Antoine CollasUniversité Paris-Saclay, Inria, CEA, Palaiseau, France.
Pedro L C RodriguesUniversité Grenoble Alpes, Inria, CNRS, Grenoble INP, LJK, Grenoble, France.
Denis EngemannUniversité Paris-Saclay, Inria, CEA, Palaiseau, France.
Alexandre GramfortUniversité Paris-Saclay, Inria, CEA, Palaiseau, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neuroscience studies face challenges in gathering large datasets, which limits the use of machine learning (ML) approaches. One possible solution is to incorporate additional data from large public datasets; however, data collected in different contexts often exhibit systematic differences called dataset shifts. Various factors, for example, site, device type, experimental protocol, or social characteristics, can lead to substantial divergence of brain signals that can hinder the success of ML across datasets. In this work, we focus on dataset shifts in recordings of brain activity using MEG and EEG. State-of-the-art predictive approaches on magneto- and electroencephalography (M/EEG) signals classically represent the data by covariance matrices. Model-based dataset alignment methods can leverage the geometry of covariance matrices, leading to three steps: re-centering, re-scaling, and rotation correction. This work explains theoretically how differences in brain activity, anatomy, or device configuration lead to certain shifts in data covariances. Using controlled simulations, the different alignment methods are evaluated. Their practical relevance is evaluated for brain age prediction on one MEG dataset (Cam-CAN,

Indexed as

brain agedataset shiftdomain adaptationmachine learningMEG/EEGRiemannian geometry

Identifiers

PMID40799715
PMCPMC12007539

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.