Comparing the stability and reproducibility of brain-behavior relationships found using canonical correlation analysis and partial least squares within the ABCD sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Canonical correlation analysis (CCA) and partial least squares correlation (PLS) detect linear associations between two data matrices by computing latent variables (LVs) having maximal correlation (CCA) or covariance (PLS). This study compared the similarity and generalizability of CCA- and PLS-derived brain-behavior relationships. Data were accessed from the baseline Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) dataset (N > 9,000, 9–11 years). The brain matrix consisted of cortical thickness estimates from the Desikan-Killiany atlas. Two phenotypic scales were examined separately as the behavioral matrix; the Child Behavioral Checklist (CBCL) subscale scores and NIH Toolbox performance scores. Resampling methods were used to assess significance and generalizability of LVs. LV1 for the CBCL brain relationships was found to be significant, yet not consistently stable or reproducible, across CCA and PLS models (singular value: CCA = .13, PLS = .39, p < .001). LV1 for the NIH brain relationships showed similar relationships between CCA and PLS and was found to be stable and reproducible (singular value: CCA = .21, PLS = .43, p < .001). The current study suggests that stability and reproducibility of brain-behavior relationships identified by CCA and PLS are influenced by the statistical characteristics of the phenotypic measure used when applied to a large population-based pediatric sample.
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 | 0.023 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".