Assessment of dynamic functional connectivity in resting‐state fMRI using the sliding window technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recent studies related to assessing functional connectivity (FC) in resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging have revealed that the resulting connectivity patterns exhibit considerable fluctuations (dynamic FC [dFC]). A widely applied method for quantifying dFC is the sliding window technique. According to this method, the data are divided into segments with the same length (window size) and a correlation metric is employed to assess the connectivity within these segments, whereby the window size is often empirically chosen. METHODS: In this study, we rigorously investigate the assessment of dFC using the sliding window approach. Specifically, we perform a detailed comparison between different correlation metrics, including Pearson, Spearman and Kendall correlation, Pearson and Spearman partial correlation, Mutual Information (MI), Variation of Information (VI), Kullback-Leibler divergence, Multiplication of Temporal Derivatives and Inverse Covariance. RESULTS: Using test-retest datasets, we show that MI and VI yielded the most consistent results by achieving high reliability with respect to dFC estimates for different window sizes. Subsequent hypothesis testing, based on multivariate phase randomization surrogate data generation, allowed the identification of dynamic connections between the posterior cingulate cortex and regions in the frontal lobe and inferior parietal lobes, which were overall in agreement with previous studies. CONCLUSIONS: In the case of MI and VI, a window size of at least 120 s was found to be necessary for detecting dFC for some of the previously identified dynamically connected regions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".