Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 52 references

Interpretable brain age prediction using linear latent variable models of functional connectivity

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 For connectivity-based brain age prediction, constraining PCA-style latent variable models with non-negativity and orthonormality improves both interpretability and predictive accuracy.

desk verdict Useful internal comparison of constrained latent variable models for brain age, but the cross-dataset generalization is oversold and the novelty claim is wrong. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01555 v1 pith:BRCTYTXV submitted 2019-08-05 stat.AP q-bio.NC

Ricardo Pio Monti , Alex Gibberd , Sandipan Roy , Matt Nunes , Romy Lorenz , Robert Leech , Takeshi Ogawa , Motoaki Kawanabe
show 1 more author
Aapo Hyvarinen
This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.APq-bio.NC MSC 62H2562J0562P10
keywords brainagefunctionalconnectivityresting-statefMRIPCAnon-negativematrixfactorizationinterpretabilityaginglinearlatentvariablemodels
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 argues that brain age can be predicted from resting-state fMRI functional connectivity with a two-step pipeline: first learn a small set of shared connectivity networks using a linear latent variable model, then regress age on each subject's activity within those networks. Its central thesis is that adding non-negativity and orthonormality constraints to the loading matrix yields networks that are easier to interpret and better predictors of age. On three open datasets (CamCAN, HCP, and ATR Wide-Age-Range), the constrained models MCF and MHA achieve the lowest mean absolute error, and the inferred networks recapitulate known ageing-sensitive systems such as the default mode network. If right, this offers a transparent alternative to black-box brain age predictors and turns the predictive model into a tool for probing how connectivity changes with age.

What carries the argument

The central object is the loading matrix $W \in \mathbb{R}^{p \times k}$, whose columns define functional networks, constrained by non-negativity and orthonormality. MHA (Modular Hierarchical Analysis) is the probabilistic model that enforces both constraints and makes the decomposition identifiable; MCF (Modular Connectivity Factorization) is the related objective with the same constraints. Each subject's covariance is modelled as $\Sigma^{(i)} = \sum_j g^{(i)}_j W_j W_j^T + v^{(i)} I$, so the diagonal entries $g^{(i)}_j$ quantify the activity of network $j$ in subject $i$, and those activities become the features in the linear regression for age. The machinery converts high-dimensional connectivity matrices into a small set of non-negative, non-overlapping network scores while retaining predictive signal, which is what makes the subsequent model interpretation possible.

What would settle it

Rerun the evaluation on HCP and ATR with a trivial baseline that always predicts the mean training age; if the MHA and MCF errors do not clearly beat this baseline, the transfer-generalization claim fails. A stronger test would restrict all three datasets to a common age range and re-compare the methods on that subset.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that functional connectivity features for brain age prediction are best extracted by decomposing each subject's covariance matrix as a low-rank sum of networks, $\Sigma^{(i)} = \sum_j g^{(i)}_j W_j W_j^T + v^{(i)} I$, with the loading matrix $W$ constrained to be non-negative ($W \ge 0$) and orthonormal ($W^T W = I$). Under these constraints (the MHA and MCF models), each brain region belongs to exactly one network, the decomposition is identifiable up to trivial symmetries, and the associated network activities $g^{(i)}_j$ are more informative for linear regression than unconstrained PCA or factor analysis loadings. In experiments on 647 CamCAN participants, the constrained models produced spatially coherent, bilaterally symmetric networks matching the default mode, salience, visual, and somatomotor systems, and activity in most of these networks declined with age. Transferring the CamCAN-trained regression to HCP and ATR produced mean absolute errors of 12.71 and 12.18 years respectively, lower than all less-constrained baselines on the same held-out data.

Load-bearing premise

The transfer evaluation assumes raw mean absolute error is a meaningful measure of generalization on HCP and ATR, but on HCP (ages 22 to 37) a constant predictor would already give an error far below the reported 12.71 years, so the 'generalizes well' conclusion rests on a fragile premise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Connectivity-based brain age models can be made interpretable without sacrificing accuracy, provided the feature extraction step imposes non-negativity and orthonormality.
  • The inferred networks identify a concrete set of age-sensitive systems (default mode, salience, visual, and somatomotor) whose activity declines with age, giving targeted hypotheses for ageing research.
  • The two-step pipeline transfers across scanners and acquisition protocols, suggesting the learned networks capture reproducible between-subject variation rather than scanner-specific artefacts.
  • Because the regression is linear, each network's coefficient directly reads as the change in predicted age per unit change in network activity, enabling hypothesis-driven follow-up.
  • The performance figures set a baseline for healthy subjects only; extending the same pipeline to clinical groups would require re-validation before use as a biomarker.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The raw mean absolute error comparisons on HCP and ATR are fragile because those datasets have narrow or mid-range age distributions; a fairer evaluation would compare against an age-constant baseline, and the 'generalizes well' claim may weaken under that test.
  • The same constrained decomposition could be used to compute a per-network 'brain age gap', separating which network's decline most drives an individual's predicted age acceleration.
  • The identifiability of the constrained loading matrix could enable direct cross-cohort comparisons of network structure, turning brain age models into standardized connectomic atlases.
  • A testable extension is to apply the pipeline to task-based fMRI or to patient groups to see whether the same networks carry the age signal when cognition or pathology changes.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a two-stage framework for brain-age prediction from resting-state fMRI functional connectivity. In the first stage, linear latent variable models (factor analysis, PCA, non-negative PCA, MCF, and MHA) are used to learn a shared loading matrix W whose columns are interpreted as functional connectivity networks; subject-specific network activities are then used as features in a linear regression to predict age. The framework is trained and validated on CamCAN, with the number of factors k selected by validation likelihood, and the fitted model is transferred without retraining to HCP and ATR Wide-Age-Range data. The central claim is that introducing non-negativity and orthonormality constraints improves both interpretability and predictive performance, with MHA and MCF reported as the best-performing methods on all three repositories.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper would contribute a transparent, interpretable approach to brain-age modeling from functional connectivity, with the inferred networks (e.g., default mode, salience, visual, somatomotor) offering neurobiological insight. The manuscript has several strengths: the method is clearly described; the choice of k using validation likelihood without using age labels is a sensible safeguard against circularity; the CamCAN internal comparison across latent-variable models is a useful empirical contribution; and the synthetic experiments, while favorable to the constrained models, are explicitly presented as a numerical validation of the estimation procedure. The cross-dataset transfer design (training only on CamCAN) is also commendable. However, the external generalization evidence is currently under-analyzed: the raw MAE values on HCP and ATR are not compared with trivial baselines, which is essential because the age ranges of those datasets are narrow or uneven.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.2.2, Table 1] The cross-dataset generalization claim is not evaluated against trivial baselines. On HCP, ages span only 22–37 years, so a constant predictor returning the mean age of the HCP sample would achieve an MAE equal to the mean absolute deviation of that age distribution, roughly 2–4 years (approximately 3.75 years even under a uniform assumption), whereas the reported MHA MAE is 12.71 years. On ATR, ages span 20–70 years, where a constant predictor would achieve an MAE of about 12.5 years under a uniform age distribution, essentially equal to the reported MHA value of 12.18 years. The raw MAEs therefore do not demonstrate that the models encode age-related connectivity; they are equally consistent with predictions that are nearly constant or driven by dataset-specific offsets. This undermines the abstract's and Section 4's claims that the models 'generalize well' to unseen repositories and that constraints improve predictive performance on those data.
  2. [Section 3.2.2, Figures 8–9] The conclusion that MHA and MCF show the 'smallest drop' in performance and thereby generalize best is based on absolute MAE differences that are small relative to the age-range baseline. For example, on ATR the difference between MHA (12.18) and factor analysis (13.40) is about 1.2 years, while the constant-predictor baseline is about 12.5 years; on HCP the MAE values exceed the entire age range of the dataset. Without reporting the correlation between predicted and true age (or R²) on HCP and ATR, or explicitly comparing against a mean-age predictor, the relative ordering of methods could reflect calibration or dataset-specific offsets rather than age-related predictive signal. The authors should either add these baselines and calibration analyses to support the transfer claim, or substantially weaken the generalization claim and restrict the predictive-performance conclusion to the internal CamCAN comparison.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 1] The word 'conncetivity' appears in the second paragraph of the introduction and should be corrected to 'connectivity'.
  2. [Acknowledgments] The sentence 'The authors with to thank Steve Smith' should read 'wish to thank'.
  3. [Figure 6 caption] The word 'othonormality' in the caption is a typo and should be 'orthonormality'.
  4. [Section 2.3 and Section 3.2.1] The hyper-parameter k is fixed to 5 for all models even though the authors note that the optimal k may differ across models; a sentence explaining why this fixed choice is appropriate for the cross-model comparison would be helpful.
  5. [Table 1 caption] The caption states that bracketed values are standard deviations, but it would be clearer to specify that these are standard deviations across the 1000 random subsets of 30 subjects, not across the subjects within a dataset.
  6. [Section 3.1.1] The sentence 'This is a phenomenon is also observed in the real data analysis' contains a grammatical error ('This is a phenomenon is') and should be rephrased.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the brain-age pipeline is fit on CamCAN training data and tested on held-out subjects and two external datasets, so the reported predictions are not fitted values renamed as predictions.

full rationale

The two-stage procedure is a standard, non-circular pipeline: the loading matrix W and subject-level factor loadings are estimated from CamCAN training subjects, the linear age-regression is fit on the same training split, and all reported MAE values (CamCAN test, HCP, ATR) are produced with fixed parameters on data not used for fitting. The comparison showing MHA/MCF outperform PCA and factor analysis is an empirical result on held-out data rather than a consequence of how the methods are defined; the synthetic experiments are explicitly generated from the assumed model as simulation checks. The only self-citation is the MHA identifiability/uniqueness result from Monti and Hyvärinen (2018), which is a mathematical background justification for interpretability and is not used to fabricate the predictive comparisons. The lack of trivial baselines for the HCP/ATR absolute MAEs is a legitimate external-validity concern but is not circularity, since the HCP and ATR predictions are genuinely out-of-sample. No equation is defined in terms of its own output, and no fitted parameter is presented as a free prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the low-rank Gaussian covariance model, the Power parcellation, the identifiability theorem for MHA from prior work, and the assumption that inter-dataset preprocessing differences do not dominate. The only tuned hyperparameter is k (set to 5), while G(i), v(i), and beta are estimated from data.

free parameters (4)
  • k (number of latent factors) = 5
    Selected by maximizing log-likelihood on the CamCAN validation set, then fixed across all models; affects all reported MAE results.
  • Per-subject noise variance v(i) = estimated per subject
    Estimated from the residual covariance after projecting onto W (Equation 12); needed for factor loadings on unseen subjects.
  • Factor variances G(i) = estimated per subject
    Diagonal entries of G(i), the subject-specific network activities used as regression features.
  • Regression coefficients beta = fitted on CamCAN training data
    Linear coefficients from age ~ network activity (Equation 10); applied unchanged to HCP and ATR.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption fMRI observations are Gaussian with covariance decomposable as W G(i) W^T + v(i) I (Equation 3).
    This low-rank generative model is the basis for all latent variable models and for interpreting W columns as networks.
  • domain assumption The Power 264-region parcellation defines the functional nodes; connectivity is estimated via sample covariance over the full resting-state time course.
    All results depend on this parcellation and on static (not dynamic) connectivity; no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • standard math MHA's identifiability and network clustering properties (Monti and Hyvarinen, 2018) are assumed.
    The paper relies on the prior result that non-negativity plus orthonormality makes W identifiable with at most one nonzero entry per row.
  • domain assumption Age-specific preprocessing differences across CamCAN, HCP, and ATR do not dominate the connectivity signal.
    The transfer test pools data processed with different pipelines (e.g., global signal regression in ATR only), which may affect comparability.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interpretable brain age prediction using linear latent variable models of functional connectivity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BRCTYTXV

@misc{pith2026190801555,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interpretable brain age prediction using linear latent variable models of functional connectivity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BRCTYTXV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01555}
}
read the original abstract

Neuroimaging-driven prediction of brain age, defined as the predicted biological age of a subject using only brain imaging data, is an exciting avenue of research. In this work we seek to build models of brain age based on functional connectivity while prioritizing model interpretability and understanding. This way, the models serve to both provide accurate estimates of brain age as well as allow us to investigate changes in functional connectivity which occur during the ageing process. The methods proposed in this work consist of a two-step procedure: first, linear latent variable models, such as PCA and its extensions, are employed to learn reproducible functional connectivity networks present across a cohort of subjects. The activity within each network is subsequently employed as a feature in a linear regression model to predict brain age. The proposed framework is employed on the data from the CamCAN repository and the inferred brain age models are further demonstrated to generalize using data from two open-access repositories: the Human Connectome Project and the ATR Wide-Age-Range.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01555 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Pipeline for estimating networks, factor loadings, and predictive model for biological brain age. Inferred factors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure demonstrating the relationship between linear latent variable models, such as PCA and its extensions, to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. We note that both in terms of recovery of the loading matrix, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Simulation results for recovery of the true loading matrix (left panel) and prediction of brain age for unseen subjects [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simulation results for recovery of the true loading matrix (left panel) and prediction of brain age for unseen subjects [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left panel: inferred networks as recovered when non-negativity and orthonormality constraints are introduced over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mean absolute error (MAE) performance for a varying number of networks, as determined by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mean absolute error (MAE) performance on unseen testing data from CamCAN repository when the dimensionality [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mean absolute error (MAE) performance on unseen data from HCP repository. Results are broadly consistent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mean absolute error (MAE) performance on unseen data from ATR Wide-Age-Range repository. Results are broadly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ashburner

    J. Ashburner. Computational anatomy with the spm software. Magnetic resonance imaging, 27 0 (8): 0 1163--1174, 2009

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    Athreya, D

    A. Athreya, D. E. Fishkind, M. Tang, C. E. Priebe, Y. Park, J. T. Vogelstein, K. Levin, V. Lyzinski, and Y. Qin. Statistical inference on random dot product graphs: a survey. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18 0 (1): 0 8393--8484, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    C. M. Bennett and M. B. Miller. How reliable are the results from functional magnetic resonance imaging? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1191 0 (1): 0 133--155, 2010

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    D. P. Bertsekas. Constrained optimization and Lagrange multiplier methods . Academic Press, 2014

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    C. M. Bishop. Pattern recognition and machine learning. springer, 2006

    2006

  6. [6]

    V. D. Calhoun, R. Miller, G. Pearlson, and T. Adal . The chronnectome: time-varying connectivity networks as the next frontier in f M R I data discovery. Neuron, 84 0 (2): 0 262--274, 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    V. L. Cherkassky, R. K. Kana, T. A. Keller, and M. A. Just. Functional connectivity in a baseline resting-state network in A utism . Neuroreport, 17 0 (16): 0 1687--1690, 2006. doi:10.1097/01.wnr.0000239956.45448.4c

    work page arXiv 2006

  8. [8]

    J. H. Cole and K. Franke. Predicting age using neuroimaging: innovative brain ageing biomarkers. Trends in neurosciences, 40 0 (12): 0 681--690, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    J. H. Cole, R. Leech, D. J. Sharp, and A. D. N. Initiative. Prediction of brain age suggests accelerated atrophy after traumatic brain injury. Annals of neurology, 77 0 (4): 0 571--581, 2015

    2015

  2. [10]

    J. H. Cole, R. P. Poudel, D. Tsagkrasoulis, M. W. Caan, C. Steves, T. D. Spector, and G. Montana. Predicting brain age with deep learning from raw imaging data results in a reliable and heritable biomarker. NeuroImage, 163: 0 115--124, 2017

    2017

  3. [11]

    J. H. Cole, S. J. Ritchie, M. E. Bastin, M. V. Hern \'a ndez, S. M. Maniega, N. Royle, J. Corley, A. Pattie, S. E. Harris, Q. Zhang, et al. Brain age predicts mortality. Molecular psychiatry, 23 0 (5): 0 1385, 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    H. R. Cremers, T. D. Wager, and T. Yarkoni. The relation between statistical power and inference in f M R I . PloS one, 12 0 (11): 0 e0184923, 2017

    2017

  5. [13]

    J. S. Damoiseaux, K. E. Prater, B. L. Miller, and M. D. Greicius. Functional connectivity tracks clinical deterioration in Alzheimer's disease . Neurobiol. Aging, 33 0 (4), 2012. doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2011.06.024

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    N. U. Dosenbach, B. Nardos, A. L. Cohen, D. A. Fair, J. D. Power, J. A. Church, S. M. Nelson, G. S. Wig, A. C. Vogel, C. N. Lessov-Schlaggar, et al. Prediction of individual brain maturity using f M R I . Science, 329 0 (5997): 0 1358--1361, 2010

    2010

  7. [15]

    Franke, G

    K. Franke, G. Ziegler, S. Kl \"o ppel, C. Gaser, A. D. N. Initiative, et al. Estimating the age of healthy subjects from t1-weighted M R I scans using kernel methods: exploring the influence of various parameters. Neuroimage, 50 0 (3): 0 883--892, 2010

    2010

  8. [16]

    Franke, C

    K. Franke, C. Gaser, B. Manor, and V. Novak. Advanced brainage in older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 5: 0 90, 2013

    2013

  9. [17]

    Friedman, G

    L. Friedman, G. H. Glover, F. Consortium, et al. Reducing interscanner variability of activation in a multicenter f M R I study: controlling for signal-to-fluctuation-noise-ratio (sfnr) differences. Neuroimage, 33 0 (2): 0 471--481, 2006

    2006

  10. [18]

    Geerligs, R

    L. Geerligs, R. J. Renken, E. Saliasi, N. M. Maurits, and M. M. Lorist. A brain-wide study of age-related changes in functional connectivity. Cerebral cortex, 25 0 (7): 0 1987--1999, 2014

    1987

  11. [19]

    Geerligs, M

    L. Geerligs, M. Rubinov, R. N. Henson, et al. State and trait components of functional connectivity: individual differences vary with mental state. Journal of Neuroscience, 35 0 (41): 0 13949--13961, 2015

    2015

  12. [20]

    Geerligs, K

    L. Geerligs, K. A. Tsvetanov, and R. N. Henson. Challenges in measuring individual differences in functional connectivity using f M R I : the case of healthy aging. Human brain mapping, 38 0 (8): 0 4125--4156, 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    Geerligs et al

    L. Geerligs et al. Reduced specificity of functional connectivity in the aging brain during task performance. Human Brain Mapping, 35: 0 319--330, 2012

    2012

  14. [22]

    C. D. Good, I. S. Johnsrude, J. Ashburner, R. N. Henson, K. J. Friston, and R. S. Frackowiak. A voxel-based morphometric study of ageing in 465 normal adult human brains. Neuroimage, 14 0 (1): 0 21--36, 2001

    2001

  15. [23]

    Grady, S

    C. Grady, S. Sarraf, C. Saverino, and K. Campbell. Age differences in the functional interactions among the default, frontoparietal control, and dorsal attention networks. Neurobiology of aging, 41: 0 159--172, 2016

    2016

  16. [24]

    H. H. Harman. Modern Factor Analysis. Univ. of Chicago Press, 1960

    1960

  17. [25]

    Hirayama, A

    J. Hirayama, A. Hyv \"a rinen, V. Kiviniemi, M. Kawanabe, and O. Yamashita. Characterizing variability of modular brain connectivity with constrained principal component analysis. PloS one, 11 0 (12): 0 e0168180, 2016

    2016

  18. [26]

    Hotelling

    H. Hotelling. Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal components. Journal of educational psychology, 24 0 (6): 0 417, 1933

    1933

  19. [27]

    Hyv \" a rinen, J

    A. Hyv \" a rinen, J. I. Hirayama, V. Kiviniemi, and M. Kawanabe. Orthogonal Connectivity Factorization: Interpretable Decomposition of Variability in Correlation Matrices . Neural Comput., 28 0 (3): 0 445--484, 2016

    2016

  20. [28]

    Jolliffe

    I. Jolliffe. Principal component analysis. Springer, 2011

    2011

  21. [29]

    Kelly, B

    C. Kelly, B. B. Biswal, R. C. Craddock, F. X. Castellanos, and M. P. Milham. Characterizing variation in the functional connectome: promise and pitfalls. Trends in cognitive sciences, 16 0 (3): 0 181--188, 2012

    2012

  22. [30]

    o ssler, H.-J. M \

    N. Koutsouleris, C. Davatzikos, S. Borgwardt, C. Gaser, R. Bottlender, T. Frodl, P. Falkai, A. Riecher-R \"o ssler, H.-J. M \"o ller, M. Reiser, et al. Accelerated brain aging in S chizophrenia and beyond: a neuroanatomical marker of psychiatric disorders. Schizophrenia bullet...

    2013

  23. [31]

    Lancaster, R

    J. Lancaster, R. Lorenz, R. Leech, and J. H. Cole. Bayesian optimization for neuroimaging pre-processing in brain age classification and prediction. Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 10: 0 28, 2018

    2018

  24. [32]

    Leonardi, J

    N. Leonardi, J. Richiardi, M. Gschwind, S. Simioni, J. M. Annoni, M. Schluep, P. Vuilleumier, and D. Van De Ville . Principal components of functional connectivity: A new approach to study dynamic brain connectivity during rest . Neuroimage, 83: 0 937--950, 2013

    2013

  25. [33]

    F. Liem, L. Geerligs, J. S. Damoiseaux, and D. S. Margulies. Functional connectivity in aging, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    S. Lim, C. E. Han, P. J. Uhlhaas, and M. Kaiser. Preferential detachment during human brain development: age-and sex-specific structural connectivity in diffusion tensor imaging (dti) data. Cerebral Cortex, 25 0 (6): 0 1477--1489, 2013

    2013

  27. [35]

    R. P. Monti and A. Hyv \" a rinen. A Unified Probabilistic Model for Learning Latent Factors and Their Connectivities from High-Dimensional Data . In Conf. Uncertain. Artif. Intell., 2018

    2018

  28. [36]

    R. P. Monti, P. Hellyer, D. Sharp, R. Leech, C. Anagnostopoulos, and G. Montana. Estimating time-varying brain connectivity networks from functional M R I time series. NeuroImage, 103: 0 427--443, 2014

    2014

  29. [37]

    R. P. Monti, R. Lorenz, R. M. Braga, C. Anagnostopoulos, R. Leech, and G. Montana. Real-time estimation of dynamic functional connectivity networks. Human brain mapping, 38 0 (1): 0 202--220, 2017 a

    2017

  30. [38]

    R. P. Monti, R. Lorenz, P. Hellyer, R. Leech, C. Anagnostopoulos, and G. Montana. Decoding time-varying functional connectivity networks via linear graph embedding methods. Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 11: 0 14, 2017 b

    2017

  31. [39]

    Ogawa, T

    T. Ogawa, T. Aihara, T. Shimokawa, and O. Yamashita. Large-scale brain network associated with creative insight: combined voxel-based morphometry and resting-state functional connectivity analyses. Scientific reports, 8 0 (1): 0 6477, 2018

    2018

  32. [40]

    R. A. Poldrack, J. A. Mumford, and T. E. Nichols. Handbook of functional MRI data analysis. Cambridge University Press, 2011

    2011

  33. [41]

    J. D. Power, A. L. Cohen, S. M. Nelson, G. S. Wig, K. A. Barnes, J. A. Church, A. C. Vogel, T. O. Laumann, F. M. Miezin, B. L. Schlaggar, et al. Functional network organization of the human brain. Neuron, 72 0 (4): 0 665--678, 2011

    2011

  34. [42]

    Raz and K

    N. Raz and K. M. Rodrigue. Differential aging of the brain: patterns, cognitive correlates and modifiers. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 30 0 (6): 0 730--748, 2006

    2006

  35. [43]

    Salimi-Khorshidi, G

    G. Salimi-Khorshidi, G. Douaud, C. F. Beckmann, M. F. Glasser, L. Griffanti, and S. M. Smith. Automatic denoising of functional M R I data: combining independent component analysis and hierarchical fusion of classifiers. Neuroimage, 90: 0 449--468, 2014

    2014

  36. [44]

    C. D. Sigg and J. M. Buhmann. Expectation-maximization for sparse and non-negative P C A . In Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Machine learning, pages 960--967. ACM, 2008

    2008

  37. [45]

    S. M. Smith. The future of f M R I connectivity. Neuroimage, 62 0 (2): 0 1257--1266, 2012

    2012

  38. [46]

    S. M. Smith, M. Jenkinson, M. W. Woolrich, C. F. Beckmann, T. E. Behrens, H. Johansen-Berg, P. R. Bannister, M. De Luca, I. Drobnjak, D. E. Flitney, et al. Advances in functional and structural M R image analysis and implementation as F S L . Neuroimage, 23: 0 S208--S219, 2004

    2004

  39. [47]

    S. M. Smith, D. Vidaurre, F. Alfaro-Almagro, T. E. Nichols, and K. L. Miller. Estimation of brain age delta from brain imaging. NeuroImage, 2019

    2019

  40. [48]

    O. Sporns. Discovering the human connectome. MIT press, 2012

    2012

  41. [49]

    Taylor, N

    J. Taylor, N. Williams, R. Cusack, T. Auer, M. Shafto, M. Dixon, L. Tyler, and Cam-CAN. The C ambridge C entre for A geing and N euroscience ( C am- C A N ) data repository: structural and functional M R I , M E G , and cognitive data from a cross-sectional adult lifespan samp...

    2015

  42. [50]

    D. C. Van Essen, S. M. Smith, D. M. Barch, T. E. Behrens, E. Yacoub, K. Ugurbil, W.-M. H. Consortium, et al. The W U - M inn H uman C onnectome P roject: an overview. Neuroimage, 80: 0 62--79, 2013

    2013

  43. [51]

    T. Wu, L. Wang, Y. Chen, C. Zhao, K. Li, and P. Chan. Changes of functional connectivity of the motor network in the resting state in Parkinson's disease . Neurosci. Lett., 460 0 (1): 0 6--10, 2009. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2009.05.046

    2009 doi

  44. [52]

    Zass and A

    R. Zass and A. Shashua. Non-negative sparse P C A . In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 1561--1568, 2007

    2007

Pith tools

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