ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)
Modelling variability in functional brain networks using embeddings.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lifespan oscillatory dynamics in lexical production: A population-based MEG resting-state analysis.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Comparison between EEG and MEG of static and dynamic resting-state networks.Human brain mapping · 2024Article
- Modelling discrete states and long-term dynamics in functional brain networks.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)Article
- MEG-GPT: A transformer-based foundation model for magnetoencephalography data.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)Article
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
Functional neuroimaging techniques allow us to estimate functional networks that underlie cognition. However, these functional networks are often estimated at the group level and do not allow for the discovery of, nor benefit from, subpopulation structure in the data, that is, the fact that some recording sessions may be more similar than others. Here, we propose the use of embedding vectors (c.f. word embedding in Natural Language Processing) to explicitly model individual sessions while inferring networks across a group. This vector is effectively a "fingerprint" for each session, which can cluster sessions with similar functional networks together in a learnt embedding space. We apply this approach to estimate dynamic functional networks using a hierarchical Hidden Markov Model (HMM). We call this approach HIVE (HMM with Integrated Variability Estimation). Using simulated data, we show that HIVE can uncover true subpopulation structure and show improved performance over existing approaches. Using real magnetoencephalography data, we show the learnt embedding vectors (session fingerprints) reflect meaningful sources of variation across a population. Overall, HIVE provides a powrful new approach for modelling individual sessions while leveraging information available across an entire group.
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.