ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2024
A benchmark of individual auto-regressive models in a massive fMRI dataset.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparative machine learning study of schizophrenia biomarkers derived from functional connectivity.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Alignment of auditory artificial networks with massive individual fMRI brain data leads to generalisable improvements in brain encoding and downstream tasks.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dense functional magnetic resonance imaging datasets open new avenues to create auto-regressive models of brain activity. Individual idiosyncrasies are obscured by group models, but can be captured by purely individual models given sufficient amounts of training data. In this study, we compared several deep and shallow individual models on the temporal auto-regression of BOLD time-series recorded during a natural video-watching task. The best performing models were then analyzed in terms of their data requirements and scaling, subject specificity, and the space-time structure of their predicted dynamics. We found the Chebnets, a type of graph convolutional neural network, to be best suited for temporal BOLD auto-regression, closely followed by linear models. Chebnets demonstrated an increase in performance with increasing amounts of data, with no complete saturation at 9 h of training data. Good generalization to other kinds of video stimuli and to resting-state data marked the Chebnets' ability to capture intrinsic brain dynamics rather than only stimulus-specific autocorrelation patterns. Significant subject specificity was found at short prediction time lags. The Chebnets were found to capture lower frequencies at longer prediction time lags, and the spatial correlations in predicted dynamics were found to match traditional functional connectivity networks. Overall, these results demonstrate that large individual functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) datasets can be used to efficiently train purely individual auto-regressive models of brain activity, and that massive amounts of individual data are required to do so. The excellent performance of the Chebnets likely reflects their ability to combine spatial and temporal interactions on large time scales at a low complexity cost. The non-linearities of the models did not appear as a key advantage. In fact, surprisingly, linear versions of the Chebnets appeared to outperform the original non-linear ones. Individual temporal auto-regressive models have the potential to improve the predictability of the BOLD signal. This study is based on a massive, publicly-available dataset, which can serve for future benchmarks of individual auto-regressive modeling.
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.