Multivariate analytical approaches for investigating brain-behavior relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Many studies of brain-behavior relationships rely on univariate approaches where each variable of interest is tested independently, which does not allow for the simultaneous investigation of multiple correlated variables. Alternatively, multivariate approaches allow for examining relationships between psychopathology and neural substrates simultaneously. There are multiple multivariate methods to choose from that each have assumptions which can affect the results; however, many studies employ one method without a clear justification for its selection. Additionally, there are few studies illustrating how differences between methods manifest in examining brain-behavior relationships. The purpose of this study was to exemplify how the choice of multivariate approach can change brain-behavior interpretations. Method: ) to examine brain-behavior relationships with three commonly used multivariate approaches: canonical correlation analysis (CCA), partial least squares correlation (PLSC), and partial least squares regression (PLSR). We examined the associations between psychopathology dimensions including general psychopathology, attention-deficit/hyperactivity symptoms, conduct problems, and internalizing symptoms with regional brain volumes. Results: The results of CCA, PLSC, and PLSR showed both consistencies and differences in the relationship between psychopathology symptoms and brain structure. The leading significant component yielded by each method demonstrated similar patterns of associations between regional brain volumes and psychopathology symptoms. However, the additional significant components yielded by each method demonstrated differential brain-behavior patterns that were not consistent across methods. Conclusion: Here we show that CCA, PLSC, and PLSR yield slightly different interpretations regarding the relationship between child psychopathology and brain volume. In demonstrating the divergence between these approaches, we exemplify the importance of carefully considering the method's underlying assumptions when choosing a multivariate approach to delineate brain-behavior relationships.
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 | 0.024 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".