MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2593004000 · doi:10.1111/ejn.13560

Ensuring that novel resting‐state <scp>fMRI</scp> metrics are physiologically grounded, interpretable and meaningful (A commentary on Canna <i>et al</i>., 2017)

2017· letter· en· W2593004000 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Katharine Dunlop, Jonathan Downar

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Neuroscience · 2017
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCanada Research ChairsUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthFondation Brain CanadaOntario Brain Institute
KeywordsVoxelResting state fMRIPsychologyFunctional magnetic resonance imagingNeuroscienceBetweenness centralityBulimia nervosaConnectomicsHuman brainConnectomeCognitive psychologyFunctional connectivityArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceEating disordersCentralityPsychiatryMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI) is a popular modality for studying human brain function, with a profusion of user-friendly software tools available for data analysis (Buckner et al., 2013).Conventional approaches measure correlations in spontaneous blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) signals across networks of brain regions; more recently, graph theoretical measures, including betweenness-and degree-centrality, have helped to further characterize the functional architecture of the brain (Bullmore & Sporns, 2009).Newer metrics have also been developed to assess dynamic aspects of rs-fMRI network activity; examples include BOLD signal variability (Fox & Raichle, 2007), 'sliding-window' correlations (Chang & Glover, 2010), and amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations (ALFF) (Zou et al., 2008).The fast-proliferating set of techniques also includes regional homogeneity (Zang et al., 2004), multi-voxel pattern analysis (Norman et al., 2006), brain-wide association studies (Cheng et al., 2016) and numerous others.Such tools, properly applied, have the potential to advance our understanding of human brain function in health and disease.In this paper, Interhemispheric Functional Connectivity in Anorexia and Bulimia Nervosa, Canna et al., (2017) apply one such novel analysis to rs-fMRI in eating disorders.The authors used voxel-mirrored homotopic connectivity (VMHC) to identify possible interhemispheric differences in brain activity between patients with anorexia nervosa (AN), bulimia nervosa (BN) and healthy controls.VMHC measures BOLD signal correlations between a given voxel in one hemisphere and the contralateral voxel at the mirror-image location, under the assumption that these two voxels contain 'homotopic' volumes of brain tissue with related functions.Relative to controls, AN participants displayed lower VMHC in the insula, while BN participants displayed lower VMHC in the dorsolateral prefrontal and orbitofrontal cortex.The authors also used a technique called interhemispheric spectral coherence analysis (IHSC) to examine the BOLD power spectra in regions with VMHC differences.The authors attribute the observed differences to abnormal cognitive-and reward-based behaviours conventionally observed in these eating disorders.However, the reader may be left wondering whether mirror-image voxels necessarily contain brain regions with homotopic functions, or how best to interpret high vs. low VMHC values, or how to interpret signal coherence between different bands of the rs-fMRI signal.Techniques like VMHC add to an already-crowded toolbox of analytical techniques for rs-fMRI data, and raise several questions regarding their use and interpretation.First, how should one select the appropriate rs-fMRI technique to address the research question?Why is a given technique preferable to others for a given question?Are there any assumptions inherent to the technique that could impact the validity of findings?Finally, how does the metric relate to the underlying brain activity or physiology (already measured indirectly via the BOLD effect)?For the paper by Canna and colleagues specifically, one might ask, what is VMHC expected to reveal regarding the underlying pathophysiology of AN/BN?Why select VMHC over some other method to study AN/BN?Studies employing novel rs-fMRI techniques should provide clear rationales for their use in the context of the study population or research aims.Interpretability presents a critical issue for novel rs-fMRI analysis techniques.For many metrics, there is limited information available regarding their a priori relationship to neurophysiology, phenotype or normative distribution.To be properly interpretable, findings arising from VMHC, IHSC or other rs-fMRI techniques require theoretical and empirical benchmarks in other modalities, such as behavioural, clinical or neurophysiological measures.For example, where the study by Canna and colleagues found lower insular VMHC in AN, the authors helpfully reviewed parallels between this finding and previous research involving resting-state and task-based fMRI in AN.However, the result would be more interpretable with a more neurophysiologically grounded account of how deficits in left-right insula connectivity might contribute to the pathophysiology of AN.Interpretability would be further bolstered by making reference to other modalities, like electrophysiology, and by relating abnormal connectivity metrics to a specific phenotype, using psychometric or clinical measures, or behavioural tasks.The same applies to spectral analyses, where the physiological significance of different sub-spectra of the rs-fMRI signal is not wellestablished.In the absence of external benchmarks, the significance of low VMHC or any particular cross-spectral coherence may be difficult to interpret in any illuminating way.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.104
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.104
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.024
Scholarly communication0.0110.013
Open science0.0070.007
Research integrity0.0510.084
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.009

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.174 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Neuroscience→Same topicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies→French-language works237,207→