ArticleNetwork neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2025
Jointly estimating individual and group networks from fMRI data.
Article in Network neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In fMRI research, graphical models are used to uncover complex patterns of relationships between brain regions. Connectivity-based fMRI studies typically analyze nested data; raw observations, for example, BOLD responses, are nested within participants, which are nested within populations, for example, healthy controls. Often, studies ignore the nested structure and analyze participants either individually or in aggregate. This overlooks the distinction between within-participant and between-participant variance, which can lead to poor generalizability of results because group-level effects do not necessarily reflect effects for each member of the group and, at worst, risk paradoxical results where group-level effects are opposite to individual-level effects (e.g., Kievit, Frankenhuis, Waldorp, & Borsboom, 2013; Robinson, 2009; Simpson, 1951). To address these concerns, we propose a multilevel approach to model the fMRI networks, using a Gaussian graphical model at the individual level and a Curie-Weiss graphical model at the group level. Simulations show that our method outperforms individual or aggregate analysis in edge retrieval. We apply the proposed multilevel approach to resting-state fMRI data of 724 healthy participants, examining both their commonalities and individual differences. We not only recover the seven previously found resting-state networks at the group level but also observe considerable heterogeneity in the individual-level networks. Finally, we discuss the necessity of a multilevel approach, additional challenges, and possible future extensions.
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.