The Functional Segregation and Integration Model: Mixture Model Representations of Consistent and Variable Group-Level Connectivity in fMRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The brain consists of specialized cortical regions that exchange information between each other, reflecting a combination of segregated (local) and integrated (distributed) processes that define brain function. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is widely used to characterize these functional relationships, although it is an ongoing challenge to develop robust, interpretable models for high-dimensional fMRI data. Gaussian mixture models (GMMs) are a powerful tool for parcellating the brain, based on the similarity of voxel time series. However, conventional GMMs have limited parametric flexibility: they only estimate segregated structure and do not model interregional functional connectivity, nor do they account for network variability across voxels or between subjects. To address these issues, this letter develops the functional segregation and integration model (FSIM). This extension of the GMM framework simultaneously estimates spatial clustering and the most consistent group functional connectivity structure. It also explicitly models network variability, based on voxel- and subject-specific network scaling profiles. We compared the FSIM to standard GMM in a predictive cross-validation framework and examined the importance of different model parameters, using both simulated and experimental resting-state data. The reliability of parcellations is not significantly altered by flexibility of the FSIM, whereas voxel- and subject-specific network scaling profiles significantly improve the ability to predict functional connectivity in independent test data. Moreover, the FSIM provides a set of interpretable parameters to characterize both consistent and variable aspects functional connectivity structure. As an example of its utility, we use subject-specific network profiles to identify brain regions where network expression predicts subject age in the experimental data. Thus, the FSIM is effective at summarizing functional connectivity structure in group-level fMRI, with applications in modeling the relationships between network variability and behavioral/demographic variables.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".