Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42016560›Full record

ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)

Modelling variability in functional brain networks using embeddings.

Rukuang Huang, Chetan Gohil, Mark Woolrich

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Rukuang HuangOxford Centre for Human Brain Activity (OHBA), Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6545-7517
Chetan GohilOxford Centre for Human Brain Activity (OHBA), Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Mark WoolrichOxford Centre for Human Brain Activity (OHBA), Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Bayesian modellingfunctional connectivitygenerative modellingpopulation modellingunsupervised learning

Identifiers

PMID42016560
PMCPMC13094015

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.