Comparison of different group-level templates in gradient-based multimodal connectivity analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of large-scale brain connectivity is increasingly adopting unsupervised approaches that derive low-dimensional spatial representations from high-dimensional connectomes, referred to as gradient analysis. When translating this approach to study interindividual variations in connectivity, one technical issue pertains to the selection of an appropriate group-level template to which individual gradients are aligned. Here, we compared different group-level template construction strategies using functional and structural connectome data from neurotypical controls and individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to identify between-group differences. We studied multimodal magnetic resonance imaging data obtained from the Autism Brain Imaging Data Exchange (ABIDE) Initiative II and the Human Connectome Project (HCP). We designed six template construction strategies that varied in whether (1) they included typical controls in addition to ASD; or (2) they mapped from one dataset onto another. We found that aligning a combined subject template of the ASD and control subjects from the ABIDE Initiative onto the HCP template exhibited the most pronounced effect size. This strategy showed robust identification of ASD-related brain regions for both functional and structural gradients across different study settings. Replicating the findings on focal epilepsy demonstrated the generalizability of our approach. Our findings will contribute to improving gradient-based connectivity research.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".