Testing effective connectivity changes with structural equation modeling: What does a bad model tell us?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a statistical method that can assess changes in effective connectivity across tasks or between groups. In its initial application to neuroimaging data, anatomical connectivity provided the constraints to decompose interregional covariances to estimate effective connections. There have been concerns expressed, however, with the validity of interpreting effective connections for a model that does not adequately fit the data. We sought to address this concern by creating two population networks with different patterns of effective connectivity, extracting three samples sizes (N = 100, 60, 20), and then assessing whether the ability to detect effective connectivity differences depended on absolute model fit. Four scenarios were assessed: (1) elimination of a region showing no task differences; (2) elimination of connections with no task differences; (3) elimination of connections that carried task differences, but could be expressed through alternative indirect routes; (4) elimination of connections that carried task differences, and could not be expressed through indirect routes. We were able to detect task differences in all four cases, despite poor absolute model fit. In scenario 3, total effects captured the overall task differences even though the direct effect was no longer present. In scenario 4, task differences that were included in the model remained, but the missing effect was not expressed. In conclusion, it seems that when independent information (e.g., anatomical connectivity) is used to define the causal structure in SEM, inferences about task- or group-dependent changes are valid regardless of absolute model fit.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.129 | 0.398 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".