ArticleBrain structure & function2026
Subject fingerprinting and task classification rely on distinct functional connectivity features.
Article in Brain structure & function, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Functional connectivity (FC) measured by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has been shown to be a marker of individual brain characteristics, and also to reflect cognitive tasks. However, it remains unclear how the choice of FC measures affects the encoding of both subject and task properties. We address this question using a high-quality deep-phenotyping dataset consisting of multiple naturalistic tasks (listening to a story, watching three different movies and playing a video game) and resting-state, while working on two classification problems: subject fingerprinting and task classification. We compare the performance of a combination of two FC measures and three covariance estimation methods. We then examine the similarity and subject specificity of FC across tasks and with structural connectivity (SC). We find that sparse partial correlation, obtained from the Graphical-Lasso estimator, performs best in subject identification tasks and is most similar to SC; it stands out as a marker of identity. In contrast, task information is better captured by Pearson correlation measures, as they account for distributed brain activity. Overall, we find that pairwise interactions captured by partial correlation are optimal for fingerprinting, while multi-way relationships underlying full correlation are an accurate marker of cognitive function.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41518437What 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.