ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Independent Filter Analysis for Group Discrimination in fMRI.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Traditional group-level fMRI analysis approaches, such as Independent Component Analysis (ICA), often rely on unsupervised dimensionality reduction to map subjects into a common feature space. While effective for capturing common variance across all subjects, the preservation of discriminative features between groups of participants is not guaranteed. To address this limitation, we introduce Independent Filter Analysis (IFA), a supervised extension of group ICA that explicitly models group-discriminative information as part of the dimensionality reduction steps. Prior to unmixing, IFA constructs a subspace that simultaneously retains both shared and group-specific information, enhancing sensitivity to group effects while preserving biological interpretability. We validated IFA using simulated data and paired condition comparisons from three Human Connectome Project (HCP) tasks. In the simulation, IFA achieved 95% classification accuracy, outperforming group ICA, which failed to detect subtle group differences. On the HCP data, IFA increased network matrix classification accuracy by up to 15% and produced spatial maps that more precisely reflected task-relevant differences.
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.