ArticleIEEE access : practical innovations, open solutions2026
Multidimensional Comparisons Between Constrained ICA/IVA Algorithms for Multi-Subject fMRI Data Analysis.
Article in IEEE access : practical innovations, open solutions, 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
Large-scale functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) datasets provide exciting opportunities for understanding and improving brain health. Data-driven techniques such as independent component analysis (ICA) and independent vector analysis (IVA) have been attractive solutions for multi-subject fMRI analysis, as the extraction of functional connectivity networks is the key step in many studies. Constrained versions of ICA and IVA help significantly improve performance and interpretability, but their comparative advantages and the practical impact of their different formulations remain unclear. This work addresses this gap by conducting a comprehensive comparison of three state-of-the-art constrained algorithms: threshold-free constrained IVA (tf-cIVA), adaptive-reverse constrained IVA (ar-cIVA), and adaptive-reverse constrained ICA (ar-cEBM). These methods differ significantly in how they leverage the cross-subject information (joint processing of IVA versus the subject-wise approach of constrained ICA) and in their definitions of the closeness with the references (Lagrangian-based adaptive thresholding versus a threshold-free regularization term). We perform a multidimensional comparison among these methods using multiple metrics such as reproducibility, scalability, alignment with references, connectivity, and consistency on a multi-site fMRI dataset of 429 subjects. Our results reveal replicability across the three methods regarding their spatial correlation with the references and identification of biomarkers, as well as distinct trade-offs in other aspects: tf-cIVA excels in reproducibility and produces highly structured temporal functional network connectivity (FNC), making it a strong candidate for dynamic or connectivity-based analyses. Meanwhile, ar-cIVA demonstrates the greatest sensitivity to group differences in spatial FNC, suggesting its utility for identifying spatial biomarkers. Finally, ar-cEBM, via its subject-wise approach, offers superior computational scalability for large datasets. Surprisingly, despite not jointly modeling cross-subject information, ar-cEBM produces more stable spatial maps across subjects, suggesting its flexible density matching may be more critical for group consistency than the joint-processing framework itself. Therefore, besides providing a complete picture, the work provides practical guidance, indicating that the algorithm choice might depend on the specific research question.
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.