Toward a connectivity gradient-based framework for reproducible biomarker discovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite myriad demonstrations of feasibility, the high dimensionality of fMRI data remains a critical barrier to its utility for reproducible biomarker discovery. Recent efforts to address this challenge have capitalized on dimensionality reduction techniques applied to resting-state fMRI, identifying principal components of intrinsic connectivity which describe smooth transitions across different cortical systems, so called "connectivity gradients". These gradients recapitulate neurocognitively meaningful organizational principles that are present in both human and primate brains, and also appear to differ among individuals and clinical populations. Here, we provide a critical assessment of the suitability of connectivity gradients for biomarker discovery. Using the Human Connectome Project (discovery subsample=209; two replication subsamples= 209 × 2) and the Midnight scan club (n = 9), we tested the following key biomarker traits - reliability, reproducibility and predictive validity - of functional gradients. In doing so, we systematically assessed the effects of three analytical settings, including i) dimensionality reduction algorithms (i.e., linear vs. non-linear methods), ii) input data types (i.e., raw time series, [un-]thresholded functional connectivity), and iii) amount of the data (resting-state fMRI time-series lengths). We found that the reproducibility of functional gradients across algorithms and subsamples is generally higher for those explaining more variances of whole-brain connectivity data, as well as those having higher reliability. Notably, among different analytical settings, a linear dimensionality reduction (principal component analysis in our study), more conservatively thresholded functional connectivity (e.g., 95-97%) and longer time-series data (at least ≥20mins) was found to be preferential conditions to obtain higher reliability. Those gradients with higher reliability were able to predict unseen phenotypic scores with a higher accuracy, highlighting reliability as a critical prerequisite for validity. Importantly, prediction accuracy with connectivity gradients exceeded that observed with more traditional edge-based connectivity measures, suggesting the added value of a low-dimensional and multivariate gradient approach. Finally, the present work highlights the importance and benefits of systematically exploring the parameter space for new imaging methods before widespread deployment.
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 | 0.025 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".