ArticleNetwork neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2026
The motion sensitivity and predictive utility of different estimates of interregional functional coupling in resting-state functional MRI.
Article in Network neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Numerous methods exist for quantifying statistical dependencies, termed "functional coupling" (FC), between regional brain activity recorded with resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI). However, their efficacy in mitigating the effects of known sources of noise, such as those induced by participant head motion, and in augmenting effect sizes for brain-wide association studies (BWAS), remains unclear. Here we compared 10 different measures of FC, including correlations, partial correlations, coherence, mutual information, and partial information decomposition, and one measure of effective connectivity (EC; regression dynamic causal modeling), across two independent datasets comprising a total of 1,797 participants (867 males). Each method was evaluated for its ability to mitigate motion-related confounds in FC/EC estimates (assessed via framewise-displacement - edgewise FC correlations) and for its utility in predicting 94 behavioral measures (assessed via cross-validated kernel ridge regression). Our analyses showed that EC was most resistant to motion artifacts but had the weakest behavioral predictions. Conversely, traditional correlation-based methods showed the highest sensitivity to motion, but offered the strongest behavioral prediction across most domains and datasets. Nonetheless, relative differences in predictive accuracies were small, indicating that the use of different FC or EC metrics in rs-fMRI does not significantly impact BWAS effect sizes.
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.