Advancing brain network models to reconcile functional neuroimaging and clinical research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) captures information on brain function beyond the anatomical alterations that are traditionally visually examined by neuroradiologists. However, the fMRI signals are complex in addition to being noisy, so fMRI still faces limitations for clinical applications. Here we review methods that have been proposed as potential solutions so far, namely statistical, biophysical and decoding models, with their strengths and weaknesses. We especially evaluate the ability of these models to directly predict clinical variables from their parameters (predictability) and to extract clinically relevant information regarding biological mechanisms and relevant features for classification and prediction (interpretability). We then provide guidelines for useful applications and pitfalls of such fMRI-based models in a clinical research context, looking beyond the current state of the art. In particular, we argue that the clinical relevance of fMRI calls for a new generation of models for fMRI data, which combine the strengths of both biophysical and decoding models. This leads to reliable and biologically meaningful model parameters, which thus fulfills the need for simultaneous interpretability and predictability. In our view, this synergy is fundamental for the discovery of new pharmacological and interventional targets, as well as the use of models as biomarkers in neurology and psychiatry.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".