The impact of study design choices on significance and generalizability of canonical correlation analysis in neuroimaging studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This technical note describes the effects of different data reduction methods and sample sizes for neuroimaging studies in the context of canonical correlation analysis (CCA). CCA is a multivariate statistical technique which has gained increasing popularity in neuroimaging research in recent years. Here, we investigate the parcellation methods’ impact on elucidating neuroanatomical relationships (based on cortical thickness) with known risk factors related to Alzheimer’s disease risk using data from the UK Biobank. The cortical thickness values were parcellated using four common methods in neuroimaging (atlas-based parcellation, spectral clustering, principal component analysis, and independent component analysis) and results from CCA were compared. The results show that the choice of parcellation technique impacts the strength and significance of the correlation between the brain and behaviours. Principal component analysis and independent component analysis result in the strongest correlations. Additionally, we show that regardless of parcellation technique, smaller sample sizes of participants result in inflated correlation strength and significance.
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 | 0.617 | 0.806 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".