Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 77 references

Optimizing Differential Identifiability Improves Connectome Predictive Modeling of Cognitive Deficits in Alzheimer's Disease

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a PCA-based denoising step applied to resting-state functional connectivity before predictive modeling makes connectome models more stable and improves prediction of cognitive deficits in Alzheimer's disease.

desk verdict Useful systematic demonstration that Idiff improves test-retest stability of CPM in AD, but the external-validation claim is weakened by re-estimating the PCA transform on the validation cohort. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06197 v3 pith:LVU45KTA submitted 2019-08-16 q-bio.NC

Diana O. Svaldi , Joaquín Goñi , Kausar Abbas , Enrico Amico , David G. Clark , Charanya Muralidharan , Mario Dzemidzic , John D. West
show 3 more authors
Shannon L. Risacher Andrew J. Saykin Liana G. Apostolova (for the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.NC
keywords Alzheimer'sdiseasefunctionalconnectivitydifferentialidentifiabilityconnectomepredictivemodelingresting-statefMRIcognitiveoutcomestest-retestreliabilityPCAdenoising
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to show that unreliable functional connectomes, rather than the predictive models themselves, are the main obstacle to subject-level prediction of cognition in Alzheimer's disease, and that a PCA-based denoising step fixes that obstacle. It combines the differential identifiability framework, which finds the connectome reconstruction where a subject's own scan halves match most strongly relative to other subjects, with connectome predictive modeling, which selects connectivity edges and fits linear models to cognitive scores. The authors report that the denoised connectomes make edge selection substantially more reproducible between split halves, make models trained on one half generalize better to the other half, and significantly improve prediction on a held-out validation cohort for five of seven cognitive outcomes. If true, this matters because the procedure can be applied retrospectively to existing clinical resting-state fMRI data, reducing the need for longer or repeated scans before connectivity-based biomarkers can be used.

What carries the argument

$\mathbb{I}_f$ (differential identifiability) is the central mechanism: a data-driven denoising procedure for functional connectomes. Each subject's single resting-state fMRI session is split into two halves, restA and restB, and an identifiability matrix records the pairwise correlations between every subject's restA and restB connectomes. Differential identifiability is defined as $I_\mathrm{diff}=I_\mathrm{self}-I_\mathrm{others}$, the gap between same-subject and different-subject similarity. Group-level PCA is applied to the vectorized connectomes, and connectomes are reconstructed using an increasing number of principal components; the reconstruction maximizing $I_\mathrm{diff}$ is selected. That reconstruction feeds into connectome predictive modeling, where edges are selected by their correlation with each cognitive outcome, positive and negative masks are formed, per-subject strengths in those masks are used as regressors, and a linear model is tested on a held-out half of the cohort. All of the paper's claims about improved stability, test-retest generalizability, and external prediction follow from the choice of this particular PCA reconstruction.

What would settle it

Run the same $\mathbb{I}_f$-then-CPM pipeline on a dataset where each person has true retest fMRI from a different day or a different scanner: if the optimal PCA reconstruction fails to increase rest-to-retest edge overlap and validation correlations above those of raw connectomes, or if the model improvements disappear when training and validation connectomes come from different sessions, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claimed is that optimizing differential identifiability in resting-state functional connectomes before connectome predictive modeling improves the stability of the entire prediction pipeline. In the authors' hands, the optimal PCA reconstruction, found at a number of principal components equal to the cohort size and retaining about 80% of the variance, raises test-retest overlap in edge selection by about 30 percentage points, improves generalization of models from one scan half to the other, and lifts validation-cohort correlations between predicted and observed cognition for five of the seven outcome measures examined. The stabilized edge selection then supports the paper's secondary claim: specific resting-state network interactions are reproducibly associated with distinct cognitive deficits, with executive control, default mode, and somatomotor networks involved across all outcomes and domain-specific motifs such as salience-executive control connectivity negatively associated with memory and attention tasks. The authors present these results as the first step toward clinically useful subject-level predictions of cognition from functional connectivity in Alzheimer's disease.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that splitting a single fMRI session into two halves reproduces a true test-retest scenario; if shared in-session physiological noise inflates the apparent reliability of the denoised connectomes, the generalization gains reported here could shrink when the method is applied across separate sessions or scanners.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Denoised connectomes at the $I_\mathrm{diff}$-optimal reconstruction can be used directly in connectome predictive modeling without changing the downstream regression pipeline.
  • A test-retest validation step from restA to restB becomes a practical minimum standard for judging whether a connectivity-based cognitive model is overfit before any external validation.
  • Functional network maps generated from the stable edge masks can be interpreted as candidate biomarkers of specific cognitive deficits in Alzheimer's disease, not just as correlates of diagnostic status.
  • Existing clinical datasets with short single-session resting-state scans can be re-analyzed with this preprocessing step, potentially improving subject-level prediction from already-collected data.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the optimal number of principal components equaling the cohort size suggests a convenient stopping rule for new cohorts, but the authors do not establish that this rule is universal; it should be tested across datasets with different sizes and acquisition protocols.
  • Editorial inference: if the split-half proxy is optimistic because the two halves share within-session physiological noise, the real-world improvement on separate-day sessions could be smaller than the five-of-seven validation gain; the paper's own limitation section calls for external validation on a separate dataset.
  • Editorial inference: because the framework preserves the separation between outcome-specific maps while shrinking within-outcome session variability, it may be useful beyond Alzheimer's disease for dissociating cognitive domains generally, though the paper only claims the Alzheimer's application.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a combined pipeline in which functional connectomes (FCs) from restA/restB halves of a single resting-state fMRI session are denoised by group-level PCA at the number of principal components that maximize differential identifiability (Idiff), and the denoised FCs are then used in connectome predictive modeling (CPM) to predict seven cognitive outcomes in a cohort of 82 ADNI2 participants spanning the Alzheimer's disease spectrum. The authors evaluate (i) stability of edge selection between restA and restB, (ii) specificity of edge selection across outcomes, (iii) restA-to-restB prediction within the training cohort, and (iv) generalization to a held-out validation cohort, comparing original FCs against Idiff-optimally reconstructed FCs. They report significantly improved validation correlations for five of seven outcomes and identify resting-state network interactions associated with each outcome.

Significance. The contribution is potentially valuable: it is one of the first to connect differential-identifiability denoising to predictive modeling of cognition in a clinical population, and the emphasis on feature-selection stability before model fitting is a useful methodological message. The split-half test-retest evaluation within the training cohort is a sensible minimum standard, and the RSN-overrepresentation analyses provide interpretable, hypothesis-generating maps. However, the headline validation result rests on a transductive preprocessing procedure and a statistical comparison that treats non-independent splits as independent. If the validation gains survive a training-locked preprocessing transform and a subject-clustered permutation test, the framework would be an important practical advance; the current evidence is suggestive rather than conclusive.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.4, Section 4.2, Figure 6] The validation pipeline re-estimates the PCA basis on the validation cohort, so the claim of 'external' generalization is not supported for a fixed model. Section 2.4 states that 𝕀𝑓 was 'performed separately on training versus validation subjects,' and Section 3.1 reports Idiff peaking at 41 PCs in the validation cohort as well. Thus the PCA basis and the PC count used to denoise validation FCs are estimated from the same validation subjects whose outcomes are later predicted. The statement in Section 4.2 that this 'fully maintain[s] the independence of training data and validation data' is too strong: outcome labels are not used, but the validation set does determine the preprocessing transform. In a real deployment a single new subject cannot be denoised by re-estimating a group-level PCA basis; a fixed basis from the training cohort would be needed. To support the central claim, the validation should be repeated with the PCA basis and the PC count locked from training data only, and the 'external' language should be reframed accordingly.
  2. [Section 3.1.3, Figure 6] The paired t-test across the 200 random splits is not statistically valid because the same subjects appear in multiple folds. Each fold is a random permutation of the same 82 subjects into training and validation halves, so the 200 Pearson correlation values are not independent samples. This dependence likely makes the reported p-values anti-conservative and could affect the claim of significant improvement for 5 of 7 outcomes. Please use a permutation test that resamples subjects (e.g., permuting the outcome labels once and running the full pipeline) or a cluster-based bootstrap that accounts for subjects appearing in multiple folds, and report effect sizes with appropriate confidence intervals.
  3. [Section 2.2] The 'test-retest' evaluation is based on splitting a single fMRI session into restA and restB halves, which share physiological noise, head motion, and scanner drift. This is a best-case reliability scenario, and the denoising gains observed in validation may partly reflect removal of within-session artifacts that are not reproducible across true test-retest sessions. The paper acknowledges the need for external validation in Section 4.4, but the abstract and results use 'test-retest' and 'external data' without qualification; these terms should be replaced by 'split-half within-session' and 'held-out cohort from the same dataset' to avoid overstating generalizability.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sections 3.1 and 4.1] Section 3.1 reports mean variance explained of 71.86% (training) and 71.80% (validation) at the optimal reconstruction, while Section 4.1 states that 'Optimal reconstruction retained 80% of the variance in the data (Fig. 3 purple line)'; these numbers are inconsistent and should be reconciled.
  2. [Sections 3.1.1 and 4.2] Section 3.1.1 reports restA-restB mask overlap in the optimal range as '68% Clock Score – 76% Trails B', while Section 4.2 states an 'average peak overlap of 65% across outcome measures'; since 65% is below the reported range, one of the statements is likely an error and should be corrected.
  3. [Supplementary Figures S1-S2 and Figure 6] The supplementary figure captions refer to '1000 folds' while Figure 6 and the main text refer to '200 folds'; Section 2.4 does not specify the number of folds. Please clarify the number of random splits and use consistent terminology throughout.
  4. [Sections 2.4 and 3] The terms 'training', 'testing', and 'validation' are used inconsistently (e.g., Figure 3 caption says 'Testing Cohort' while Section 2.4 uses 'validation cohort'); please adopt one consistent naming convention and define whether the training/validation splits are stratified by diagnostic group.
  5. [Section 4.2] There are minor typographical issues, including 'rest/restest' and a missing space in '𝕀𝑓More importantly'; please proofread the manuscript.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Validation re-estimates the 𝕀𝑓 PCA basis on the validation cohort, so the 'external' gains partly reflect test-set adaptation; the outcome model is independently trained, so this is partial rather than full circularity.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.4, Section 3.1.3, and Section 4.2]
    "𝕀𝑓 was performed separately on training versus validation subjects. ... Note that the differential identifiability pipeline was run separately on the training and validation cohorts at each fold, thus fully maintaining the independence of training data and validation data."

    Validation FCs are reconstructed with a PCA basis and PC count estimated from the same validation subjects, so the 'external' test inputs are not produced by a fixed training-derived transform. The Section 4.2 independence claim holds only for the outcome model, not for preprocessing. Because the basis is chosen on validation restA/restB to maximize Idiff, the 5/7 validation gains partly measure test-set adaptation/self-consistency rather than a deployable fixed model. The paper itself concedes the related concern that 'restA and restB FCs come from the same orthogonal bases... thus the improved prediction'; running 𝕀𝑓 separately on validation leaves the same logic inside the validation step.

full rationale

No equation-level circularity was found: the CPM coefficients are trained on training subjects' outcomes, and the Idiff optimization criterion does not include outcome labels, so the central prediction claim has independent content. The self-citation of Amico and Goñi (ref 12) is not load-bearing because the 𝕀𝑓 framework was previously demonstrated on HCP data and is here applied and tested on new ADNI data; the paper also acknowledges in Section 4.4 that a completely external dataset such as ADNI3 is needed for full validation. The main concern is the validation design: re-estimating the PCA basis on validation subjects means the validation pipeline is transductive, and the paper's statement that this 'fully maintain[s] the independence of training data and validation data' is too strong. This is a genuine leakage in the generalizability claim, but it does not reduce the cognitive prediction to the fitted PCA transform, so a moderate score of 4 is appropriate rather than a higher score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on a small number of data-fitted hyperparameters (PC count, edge threshold, fold-inclusion threshold) and several domain assumptions about fMRI connectivity and the test-retest proxy. No new biological entities are introduced; the RSNs are standard resting-state networks.

free parameters (3)
  • Number of principal components for FC reconstruction = 41
    Chosen as the number of PCs maximizing differential identifiability on the training cohort; this is a data-driven hyperparameter.
  • Edge-selection correlation threshold = 0.1
    Fixed threshold for including edges in positive/negative masks; arbitrary and not cross-validated.
  • Fold-appearance threshold for final masks = 95%
    Edges kept in final network masks if selected in at least 95% of folds; arbitrary.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The 278-region cortical parcellation with subcortical additions and Yeo seven-network assignment is a valid node definition.
    Used to define edges and RSN memberships; if invalid, network association results change.
  • domain assumption Pearson correlation between mean regional time series adequately captures functional connectivity.
    Standard in the field, but assumes linearity and stationarity.
  • ad hoc to paper Group-level PCA reconstruction at the Idiff-optimal number of PCs removes noise while preserving cognition-relevant variance.
    Central premise of the denoising framework; not derived from theory and only evaluated on training data.
  • domain assumption Splitting a single fMRI session into halves mimics test-retest reliability.
    Used to create restA/restB pairs; idealizes the test-retest scenario and may inflate within-subject reliability.
  • ad hoc to paper Training and validation cohorts are independent despite re-estimating the PCA basis on validation subjects.
    The paper assumes separate PCA on validation is independent, but the basis is learned from validation FCs themselves.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimizing Differential Identifiability Improves Connectome Predictive Modeling of Cognitive Deficits in Alzheimer's Disease." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LVU45KTA

@misc{pith2026190806197,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimizing Differential Identifiability Improves Connectome Predictive Modeling of Cognitive Deficits in Alzheimer's Disease},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LVU45KTA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06197}
}
read the original abstract

Functional connectivity, as estimated using resting state fMRI, has shown potential in bridging the gap between pathophysiology and cognition. However, clinical use of functional connectivity biomarkers is impeded by unreliable estimates of individual functional connectomes and lack of generalizability of models predicting cognitive outcomes from connectivity. To address these issues, we combine the frameworks of connectome predictive modeling and differential identifiability. Using the combined framework, we show that enhancing the individual fingerprint of resting state functional connectomes leads to robust identification of functional networks associated to cognitive outcomes and also improves prediction of cognitive outcomes from functional connectomes. Using a comprehensive spectrum of cognitive outcomes associated to Alzheimer's disease, we identify and characterize functional networks associated to specific cognitive deficits exhibited in Alzheimer's disease. This combined framework is an important step in making individual level predictions of cognition from resting state functional connectomes and in understanding the relationship between cognition and connectivity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06197 by the authors.

Figure 7
Figure 7. Overrepresented edges (binomial test, a = 0.01) for the Animal Fluency Test. Positively associated edges (left) and negatively associated edges (right) are visualized separately. Nodes are sized according to their degree and colored according to resting state network membership. Positive mask edges are colored blue while negative mask edges are colored red. 4 Discussion Our work provides a comprehensive whole brain … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Stability - Session Similarity • Edge selection should be reproducible regardless of FC session used

    work page

  2. [2]

    Specificity - Outcome Similarity • Mask should be reasonably unique for every outcome measure

    work page

  3. [3]

    Model Fitting D

    Accuracy • Model built on restA FCs should generalize to restB FCs from same subjects C. Model Fitting D. Validation

    work page

  4. [4]

    distance

    Generalizability • Validation Subjects A. Data outcome1 outcomen … FC1 FCn of restA versus restB FC data used is important. (C) Strength in the positive and negative restA masks were computed using restA FCs. Strengths were used as regressors in a linear model predicting the outcome measure . Here is important that the resulting model generalize to restB ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Trends Cogn Sci, 2012

    Montague, P.R., et al., Computational psychiatry. Trends Cogn Sci, 2012. 16(1): p. 72-80

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Zalesky, and M

    Fornito, A., A. Zalesky, and M. Breakspear, The connectomics of brain disorders. Nat Rev Neurosci, 2015. 16(3): p. 159-72

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Fornito, A. and E.T. Bullmore, Connectomics: a new paradigm for understanding brain disease. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol, 2015. 25(5): p. 733-48

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Curr Opin Neurobiol, 2013

    Sporns, O., Network attributes for segregation and integration in the human brain. Curr Opin Neurobiol, 2013. 23(2): p. 162-71

    work page 2013

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    Bullmore, E. and O. Sporns, Complex brain networks: graph theoretical analysis of structural and functional systems. Nat Rev Neurosci, 2009. 10(3): p. 186-98

    2009

  2. [10]

    Misic, and O

    Avena-Koenigsberger, A., B. Misic, and O. Sporns, Communication dynamics in complex brain networks. Nat Rev Neurosci, 2017. 19(1): p. 17-33

    2017

  3. [11]

    Kasai, and M

    Yahata, N., K. Kasai, and M. Kawato, Computational neuroscience approach to biomarkers and treatments for mental disorders. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci, 2017. 71(4): p. 215-237

    2017

  4. [12]

    Int J Neuropsychopharmacol, 2017

    Yamada, T., et al., Resting-State Functional Connectivity-Based Biomarkers and Functional MRI- Based Neurofeedback for Psychiatric Disorders: A Challenge for Developing Theranostic Biomarkers. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol, 2017. 20(10): p. 769-781

    2017

  5. [13]

    Neuroimage, 2012

    Braun, U., et al., Test-retest reliability of resting-state connectivity network characteristics using fMRI and graph theoretical measures. Neuroimage, 2012. 59(2): p. 1404-12

    2012

  6. [14]

    Cereb Cortex, 2017

    Noble, S., et al., Influences on the Test-Retest Reliability of Functional Connectivity MRI and its Relationship with Behavioral Utility. Cereb Cortex, 2017. 27(11): p. 5415-5429

    2017

  7. [15]

    Arenas, and J

    Amico, E., A. Arenas, and J. Goni, Centralized and distributed cognitive task processing in the human connectome. Netw Neurosci, 2019. 3(2): p. 455-474

    2019

  8. [16]

    Amico, E. and J. Goni, The quest for identifiability in human functional connectomes. Sci Rep,

  9. [17]

    GRAIL 2019, Beyond MIC 2018

    Svaldi, D., et al., Towards Subject and Diagnostic Identifiability in the Alzheimer’s Disease Spectrum Based on Functional Connectomes in Graphs in Biomedical Image Analysis and Integrating Medical Imaging and Non-Imaging Modalities. GRAIL 2019, Beyond MIC 2018. Lecture Notes ...

    2019

  10. [18]

    Alzheimers Dement (Amst), 2017

    Badhwar, A., et al., Resting-state network dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Alzheimers Dement (Amst), 2017. 8: p. 73-85

    2017

  11. [19]

    Thomas, and B.M

    Brier, M.R., J.B. Thomas, and B.M. Ances, Network dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease: refining the disconnection hypothesis. Brain Connect, 2014. 4(5): p. 299-311

    2014

  12. [20]

    Alzheimers Dement (Amst), 2017

    Contreras, J.A., et al., Cognitive complaints in older adults at risk for Alzheimer's disease are associated with altered resting-state networks. Alzheimers Dement (Amst), 2017. 6: p. 40-49

    2017

  13. [21]

    Nat Neurosci, 2015

    Finn, E.S., et al., Functional connectome fingerprinting: identifying individuals using patterns of brain connectivity. Nat Neurosci, 2015. 18(11): p. 1664-71

    2015

  14. [22]

    Xia, and D.S

    Satterthwaite, T.D., C.H. Xia, and D.S. Bassett, Personalized Neuroscience: Common and Individual-Specific Features in Functional Brain Networks. Neuron, 2018. 98(2): p. 243-245

    2018

  15. [23]

    Passingham, and S

    Mars, R.B., R.E. Passingham, and S. Jbabdi, Connectivity Fingerprints: From Areal Descriptions to Abstract Spaces. Trends Cogn Sci, 2018. 22(11): p. 1026-1037

    2018

  16. [24]

    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2019

    Seitzman, B.A., et al., Trait-like variants in human functional brain networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2019. 116(45): p. 22851-22861

    2019

  17. [25]

    Neuroimage, 2018

    Pallares, V., et al., Extracting orthogonal subject- and condition-specific signatures from fMRI data using whole-brain effective connectivity. Neuroimage, 2018. 178: p. 238-254

    2018

  18. [26]

    Scheinost, and R.T

    Noble, S., D. Scheinost, and R.T. Constable, A decade of test-retest reliability of functional connectivity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuroimage, 2019. 203: p. 116157

    2019

  19. [27]

    Neuroimage, 2013

    Birn, R.M., et al., The effect of scan length on the reliability of resting-state fMRI connectivity estimates. Neuroimage, 2013. 83: p. 550-8

    2013

  20. [28]

    Finn, E.S., et al., Can brain state be manipulated to emphasize individual differences in functional connectivity? Neuroimage, 2017. 160: p. 140-151

    2017

  21. [29]

    Nat Neurosci, 2017

    Kaufmann, T., et al., Delayed stabilization and individualization in connectome development are related to psychiatric disorders. Nat Neurosci, 2017. 20(4): p. 513-515

    2017

  22. [30]

    JAMA Psychiatry 2018

    Kaufmann, T., et al., Stability of the brain functional connectome in individuals with Schizophrenia. JAMA Psychiatry 2018. 75(7)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Nat Protoc, 2017

    Shen, X., et al., Using connectome-based predictive modeling to predict individual behavior from brain connectivity. Nat Protoc, 2017. 12(3): p. 506-518

    2017

  24. [32]

    Neuroimage, 2019

    Scheinost, D., et al., Ten simple rules for predictive modeling of individual differences in neuroimaging. Neuroimage, 2019. 193: p. 35-45

    2019

  25. [33]

    Neuroimage, 2018

    Yoo, K., et al., Connectome-based predictive modeling of attention: Comparing different functional connectivity features and prediction methods across datasets. Neuroimage, 2018. 167: p. 11-22

    2018

  26. [34]

    Neuroimage, 2019

    Gao, S., et al., Combining multiple connectomes improves predictive modeling of phenotypic measures. Neuroimage, 2019. 201: p. 116038

    2019

  27. [35]

    Neurology, 2010

    Petersen, R.C., et al., Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). Neurology, 2010. 74

    2010

  28. [36]

    Neuroimage, 2017

    Amico, E., et al., Mapping the functional connectome traits of levels of consciousness. Neuroimage, 2017. 148: p. 201-211

    2017

  29. [37]

    Brain Connect, 2015

    Abbas, K., et al., Alteration of default mode network in high school football athletes due to repetitive subconcussive mild traumatic brain injury: a resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Brain Connect, 2015. 5(2): p. 91-101

    2015

  30. [38]

    Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat, 2017

    Xiao, B., et al., Abnormalities of localized connectivity in schizophrenia patients and their unaffected relatives: a meta-analysis of resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging studies. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat, 2017. 13: p. 467-475

    2017

  31. [39]

    J Alzheimers Dis, 2015

    Cloutier, S., et al., Patterns of Cognitive Decline Prior to Dementia in Persons with Mild Cognitive Impairment. J Alzheimers Dis, 2015. 47(4): p. 901-13

    2015

  32. [40]

    J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry, 2005

    Aggarwal, N.T., et al., Mild cognitive impairment in different functional domains and incident Alzheimer's disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry, 2005. 76(11): p. 1479-84

    2005

  33. [41]

    PLoS One, 2014

    Zhao, Q., et al., Cognitive decline in patients with Alzheimer's disease and its related factors in a memory clinic setting, Shanghai, China. PLoS One, 2014. 9(4): p. e95755

    2014

  34. [42]

    Brain, 2003

    Lambon Ralph, M.A., et al., Homogeneity and heterogeneity in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease: a cross-sectional and longitudinal study of 55 cases. Brain, 2003. 126(Pt 11): p. 2350-62

    2003

  35. [43]

    IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 2016

    Zhan, Y., et al., Network-Based Statistic Show Aberrant Functional Connectivity in Alzheimer's Disease. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 2016. 10(7): p. 1182-1188

    2016

  36. [44]

    Sci Rep, 2015

    Wook Yoo, S., et al., A Network Flow-based Analysis of Cognitive Reserve in Normal Ageing and Alzheimer's Disease. Sci Rep, 2015. 5: p. 10057

    2015

  37. [45]

    J Neurosci, 2009

    Buckner, R.L., et al., Cortical hubs revealed by intrinsic functional connectivity: mapping, assessment of stability, and relation to Alzheimer's disease. J Neurosci, 2009. 29(6): p. 1860-73

    2009

  38. [46]

    J Neurosci, 2005

    Buckner, R.L., et al., Molecular, structural, and functional characterization of Alzheimer's disease: evidence for a relationship between default activity, amyloid, and memory. J Neurosci, 2005. 25(34): p. 7709-17

    2005

  39. [47]

    Neuron, 2009

    Seeley, W.W., et al., Neurodegenerative diseases target large-scale human brain networks. Neuron, 2009. 62(1): p. 42-52

    2009

  40. [48]

    Brain, 2018

    Vogel, J.W., et al., Brain properties predict proximity to symptom onset in sporadic Alzheimer's disease. Brain, 2018. 141(6): p. 1871-1883

    2018

  41. [49]

    Front Aging Neurosci, 2018

    Lin, Q., et al., Resting-State Functional Connectivity Predicts Cognitive Impairment Related to Alzheimer's Disease. Front Aging Neurosci, 2018. 10: p. 94

    2018

  42. [50]

    Neuropsychology, 2013

    Duchek, J.M., et al., Relationship between Stroop performance and resting state functional connectivity in cognitively normal older adults. Neuropsychology, 2013. 27(5): p. 516-28

    2013

  43. [51]

    Neuroimage, 2012

    Power, J.D., et al., Spurious but systematic correlations in functional connectivity MRI networks arise from subject motion. Neuroimage, 2012. 59(3): p. 2142-54

    2012

  44. [52]

    NeuroImage, 2014

    Power, J.D., et al., Methods to detect, characterize, and remove motion artifact in resting state fMRI. NeuroImage, 2014. 84: p. 320-341

    2014

  45. [53]

    Neuroimage, 2013

    Shen, X., et al., Groupwise whole-brain parcellation from resting-state fMRI data for network node identification. Neuroimage, 2013. 82: p. 403-15

    2013

  46. [54]

    Accuracy and Precision of D2 Receptor Parameter Measurements in Ventral Striatum

    Mawlawi, O., et al., Imaging Human Mesolimbic Dopamine Transmission With Positrom Emission Tomography: I. Accuracy and Precision of D2 Receptor Parameter Measurements in Ventral Striatum. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism, 2001. 21: p. 1034-1057

    2001

  47. [55]

    The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 1901

    Pearson, K., On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points inspace. . The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 1901. 2(11): p. 559-572

    1901

  48. [56]

    Neuroimage, 2014

    Yeo, B.T., et al., Estimates of segregation and overlap of functional connectivity networks in the human cerebral cortex. Neuroimage, 2014. 88: p. 212-27

    2014

  49. [57]

    1933, Baltimore, MD

    Hotelling, H., Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal components. 1933, Baltimore, MD. : Warwich & York Inc

    1933

  50. [58]

    Shrout, P.E. and J.L. Fleiss, Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological bulletin, 1979. 86(2): p. 420

    1979

  51. [59]

    Wang, and Y

    Xia, M., J. Wang, and Y. He, BrainNet Viewer: a network visualization tool for human brain connectomics. PLoS One, 2013. 8(7): p. e68910

    2013

  52. [60]

    Neuroimage, 2019

    Dadi, K., et al., Benchmarking functional connectome-based predictive models for resting-state fMRI. Neuroimage, 2019. 192: p. 115-134

    2019

  53. [61]

    J Neurosci, 2012

    Brier, M.R., et al., Loss of intranetwork and internetwork resting state functional connections with Alzheimer's disease progression. J Neurosci, 2012. 32(26): p. 8890-9

    2012

  54. [62]

    Brain, 2010

    Zhou, J., et al., Divergent network connectivity changes in behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Brain, 2010. 133(Pt 5): p. 1352-67

    2010

  55. [63]

    Neuroimage Clin, 2014

    Garces, P., et al., The Default Mode Network is functionally and structurally disrupted in amnestic mild cognitive impairment - a bimodal MEG-DTI study. Neuroimage Clin, 2014. 6: p. 214-21

    2014

  56. [64]

    Neuron, 2009

    Sperling, R.A., et al., Amyloid deposition is associated with impaired default network function in older persons without dementia. Neuron, 2009. 63(2): p. 178-88

    2009

  57. [65]

    JAMA Neurol, 2013

    Wang, L., et al., Cerebrospinal fluid Abeta42, phosphorylated Tau181, and resting-state functional connectivity. JAMA Neurol, 2013. 70(10): p. 1242-8

    2013

  58. [66]

    J Neurosci, 2009

    Hedden, T., et al., Disruption of functional connectivity in clinically normal older adults harboring amyloid burden. J Neurosci, 2009. 29(40): p. 12686-94

    2009

  59. [67]

    Brain, 2018

    Cope, T.E., et al., Tau burden and the functional connectome in Alzheimer's disease and progressive supranuclear palsy. Brain, 2018. 141(2): p. 550-567

    2018

  60. [68]

    Jones, D.T., et al., Cascading network failure across the Alzheimer's disease spectrum. Brain,

  61. [69]

    Trends Cogn Sci, 2015

    Pearson, J., et al., Mental Imagery: Functional Mechanisms and Clinical Applications. Trends Cogn Sci, 2015. 19(10): p. 590-602

    2015

  62. [70]

    Neuroimage, 2013

    Bakkour, A., et al., The effects of aging and Alzheimer's disease on cerebral cortical anatomy: specificity and differential relationships with cognition. Neuroimage, 2013. 76: p. 332-44

    2013

  63. [71]

    Curr Opin Neurol,

    Gregory, S., et al., Measuring compensation in neurodegeneration using MRI. Curr Opin Neurol,

  64. [72]

    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2018

    Correction for Dixon et al., Heterogeneity within the frontoparietal control network and its relationship to the default and dorsal attention networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2018. 115(13): p. E3068

    2018

  65. [73]

    Eur J Neurosci, 2009

    Cattaneo, Z., et al., Contrasting early visual cortical activation states causally involved in visual imagery and short-term memory. Eur J Neurosci, 2009. 30(7): p. 1393-400

    2009

  66. [75]

    Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2005

    Nasreddine, Z.S., et al., The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: A Brief Screening Tool for Mild Cognitive Impariment. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2005. 53: p. 695-699

    2005

  67. [76]

    Fornito, and E.T

    Zalesky, A., A. Fornito, and E.T. Bullmore, Network-based statistic: identifying differences in brain networks. Neuroimage, 2010. 53(4): p. 1197-207

    2010

  68. [77]

    Front Neurosci, 2018

    Pena-Nogales, O., et al., Longitudinal Connectomes as a Candidate Progression Marker for Prodromal Parkinson's Disease. Front Neurosci, 2018. 12: p. 967. Supplementary Figures Fig. S1: Average Identifiability matrices over the 1000 folds for original FCs and FCs reconstructed ...

    2018

  69. [2016]

    139(Pt 2): p. 547-62

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.