Sparse Graphical Models for Functional Connectivity Networks: Best Methods and the Autocorrelation Issue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sparse graphical models are frequently used to explore both static and dynamic functional brain networks from neuroimaging data. However, the practical performance of the models has not been studied in detail for brain networks. In this work, we have two objectives. First, we compare several sparse graphical model estimation procedures and several selection criteria under various experimental settings, such as different dimensions, sample sizes, types of data, and sparsity levels of the true model structures. We discuss in detail the superiority and deficiency of each combination. Second, in the same simulation study, we show the impact of autocorrelation and whitening on the estimation of functional brain networks. We apply the methods to a resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data set. Our results show that the best sparse graphical model, in terms of detection of true connections and having few false-positive connections, is the smoothly clipped absolute deviation (SCAD) estimating method in combination with the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) and cross-validation (CV) selection method. In addition, the presence of autocorrelation in the data adversely affects the estimation of networks but can be helped by using the CV selection method. These results question the validity of a number of fMRI studies where inferior graphical model techniques have been used to estimate brain networks.
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 | 0.015 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".