2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.dcn.2022.101123
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Resting-state functional connectivity identifies individuals and predicts age in 8-to-26-month-olds

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

1
15
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 65 publications
1
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The volumes of segmented regions are important biomarkers on their own 8 , but accurate segmentation of cortical gray matter is also necessary to produce more advanced morphological metrics such as cortical thickness, surface area, and gyrification 9 . Finally, other modalities such as fMRI and dMRI rely on accurate segmentations to produce more computationally sophisticated metrics like functional or structural connectivity [10][11][12][13][14] .…”
Section: Infant Brain Imaging Relies On Quality Brain Segmentationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The volumes of segmented regions are important biomarkers on their own 8 , but accurate segmentation of cortical gray matter is also necessary to produce more advanced morphological metrics such as cortical thickness, surface area, and gyrification 9 . Finally, other modalities such as fMRI and dMRI rely on accurate segmentations to produce more computationally sophisticated metrics like functional or structural connectivity [10][11][12][13][14] .…”
Section: Infant Brain Imaging Relies On Quality Brain Segmentationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While research using brain age predictions and BAGs is robust in adolescents and adults 12,13 , they are not well-studied with connectome data from the perinatal period. Four studies 9,[14][15][16] have used functional connectomes, and two 17,18 have used structural connectomes to predict age in the first months of life. However, none of these studies have compared structural and functional brain ages.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Yet, biological interpretation of ML results remains a challenge for myriad reasons. While studies have interpreted the beta weights of features from ML models (Plitt et al 2015; Finn et al 2015; Dhamala et al 2020; Jiang et al 2020; Greene et al 2020; Bellantuono et al 2021; Kardan et al 2022), it has been shown that such interpretation could be seriously misleading because some features that are not related to the target label can still have significant weights in prediction (Chen et al, 2022; Haufe et al, 2014). For example, features with the strongest ML beta weights may reflect non-neuronal or nuisance signal such as head motion or machine noise (Chen et al, 2022; Haufe et al, 2014; Siegel et al, 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These canonical atlases can be used to describe within-network and between-network connectivity - herein referred to as “network block” connectivity. One commonly employed approach is an “individual network block” method in which only functional connections within a single network block (i.e., either within or between network rsFC) are used as features within the model (Kardan et al, 2022; Millar et al, 2020, 2022; Nielsen et al, 2019; Rudolph et al, 2018). Given the fact that increasing feature count is commonly associated with increasing prediction accuracy, limiting ML models to only contain features within specific networks has resulted in limited accuracy (Bellantuono et al, 2021; Cui & Gong, 2018; Nielsen et al, 2019) and reliability (Mellema et al, 2021; Tian & Zalesky, 2021).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%