Challenges in measuring individual differences in functional connectivity using fMRI: The case of healthy aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many studies report individual differences in functional connectivity, such as those related to age. However, estimates of connectivity from fMRI are confounded by other factors, such as vascular health, head motion and changes in the location of functional regions. Here, we investigate the impact of these confounds, and pre-processing strategies that can mitigate them, using data from the Cambridge Centre for Ageing & Neuroscience (www.cam-can.com). This dataset contained two sessions of resting-state fMRI from 214 adults aged 18-88. Functional connectivity between all regions was strongly related to vascular health, most likely reflecting respiratory and cardiac signals. These variations in mean connectivity limit the validity of between-participant comparisons of connectivity estimates, and were best mitigated by regression of mean connectivity over participants. We also showed that high-pass filtering, instead of band-pass filtering, produced stronger and more reliable age-effects. Head motion was correlated with gray-matter volume in selected brain regions, and with various cognitive measures, suggesting that it has a biological (trait) component, and warning against regressing out motion over participants. Finally, we showed that the location of functional regions was more variable in older adults, which was alleviated by smoothing the data, or using a multivariate measure of connectivity. These results demonstrate that analysis choices have a dramatic impact on connectivity differences between individuals, ultimately affecting the associations found between connectivity and cognition. It is important that fMRI connectivity studies address these issues, and we suggest a number of ways to optimize analysis choices. Hum Brain Mapp 38:4125-4156, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.057 | 0.179 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".