Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 59 references

STARFormer: A Novel Spatio-Temporal Aggregation Reorganization Transformer of FMRI for Brain Disorder Diagnosis

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read STARFormer claims that reordering fMRI brain regions by eigenvector centrality and reading them through variable-window attention improves ASD and ADHD classification, reporting 77.57% and 74.12% accuracy on two public datasets.

desk verdict Sensible architecture, but a cross-validation leak in the EC-ordering step and window selection without nested validation sink the SOTA claim as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00378 v2 pith:FFBIPNHG submitted 2024-12-31 eess.IV cs.CVcs.LG

Wenhao Dong , Yueyang Li , Weiming Zeng , Lei Chen , Hongjie Yan , Wai Ting Siok , Nizhuan Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CVcs.LG
keywords fMRIbraindisorderdiagnosisautismspectrumADHDeigenvectorcentralityspatio-temporaltransformerGrangercausalityfunctionalconnectivity
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

This paper claims that a transformer which first reorders brain regions by their importance in the functional network, then reads the fMRI time series through variable-size windows, classifies autism and ADHD more accurately than existing methods. On the ABIDE-I and ADHD-200 datasets it reports accuracies of 77.57% and 74.12% with the Schaefer atlas, above all nine comparison methods. The reason the ordering matters, the authors argue, is that standard transformers lack spatial inductive bias, so ranking ROIs by eigenvector centrality injects spatial structure that the attention mechanism can use. If correct, the architecture provides a more accurate and more interpretable automated screening tool for brain disorders, and its modular design could transfer to other neurological conditions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the EC-ordered ROI sequence produced by the ROI spatial structure analysis module: eigenvector centrality ranks each brain region by the importance of the regions it connects to, and regions are sorted within their seven functional networks to keep related areas together. This ranked sequence $S'$ becomes the input to a dual-branch transformer in which the temporal branch segments the series into 16, then 8, then 4 window tokens, merges back, and applies cross-window attention with a learnable positional bias, while the spatial branch treats each time point as a token and applies self-attention across ROIs. The work of this machinery is to give the transformer an explicit spatial order and a multiscale temporal view without the full $O(m^2n)$ cost of global self-attention.

What would settle it

Rerun the 10-fold protocol with the EC ordering recomputed inside each training fold from training subjects only, and compare accuracy to 77.57% (ABIDE-I) and 74.12% (ADHD-200); a meaningful drop would show that test signals leaked into the spatial ordering and inflated the headline numbers.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

STARFormer establishes that jointly modeling spatial and temporal structure of BOLD signals improves fMRI-based diagnosis of ASD and ADHD. Spatial structure is imposed by estimating Granger-causal effective connectivity among ROIs, computing eigenvector centrality, averaging it over a subset of patients, and sorting ROIs within each of seven functional networks by that score. The reordered time series is processed by a temporal branch using variable window tokens with cross-window attention and by a spatial branch using self-attention over time-point tokens; the branches are concatenated and fed to an MLP classifier. The paper reports the highest accuracy among compared methods, 77.57% on ABIDE-I and 74.12% on ADHD-200 with the Schaefer atlas, and its ablation shows that randomly permuting the ROI order drops ABIDE-I accuracy to 59.18%, evidence that the EC-based ordering is the load-bearing component.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 10% of patients used to compute the average ROI ordering are separate from the test folds; the paper draws that 10% from the whole dataset before the 10-fold split and never says the subset is restricted to training data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reported accuracy reaches 77.57% on ABIDE-I and 74.12% on ADHD-200 with the 400-ROI Schaefer atlas, above all nine comparison methods, with Wilcoxon signed-rank $p \le 0.05$.
  • Ablation evidence attributes the gain to the EC-based ROI order: random permutation of the ROI sequence drops ABIDE-I accuracy to 59.18%.
  • The variable-window schedule $\{16,8,4,4,8,16\}$ with extended window size $w/2$ is reported as the best configuration, indicating a trade-off between local and global temporal context.
  • Cross-window attention reduces the attention cost from $O(m^2 n)$ to $O(4m^2 n/g)$, a factor of $g/4$.
  • Attention-based ROI importance analysis surfaces top-5% regions consistent with known ASD and ADHD findings, supporting clinical interpretability.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A test the paper does not report: recompute the EC ordering per training fold from training subjects only, and re-run the 10-fold evaluation; if accuracy drops, the current 10% whole-dataset drawing leaked test information into the ordering.
  • Because the EC ordering is derived from Granger causality on a fixed 128-sample crop, its stability across scanning sites, TRs, and sequence lengths is untested; a cross-site generalization check would clarify whether the ranking is a disease biomarker or an artifact of preprocessing.
  • The authors commit to node centrality rather than graph topology; a natural extension is to feed the EC-ordered sequence into a graph encoder so that edge structure, not just node order, contributes to classification.
  • The reported top-5% ROI lists could be used as prospective hypotheses: an independent-cohort replication would show whether the attention ranking generalizes beyond ABIDE-I and ADHD-200.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes STARFormer, a transformer architecture for classifying brain disorders (ASD and ADHD) from resting-state fMRI time series. The method consists of three modules: an ROI spatial structure analysis module that computes a Granger-causality effective-connectivity matrix, derives eigenvector-centrality (EC) scores, and reorders ROI tokens within seven functional networks; a temporal feature reorganization module that segments the time series into variable-size window tokens with cross-window attention; and a spatio-temporal feature fusion module with parallel temporal and spatial transformer branches. The authors report experiments on ABIDE-I and ADHD-200 with Schaefer and AAL atlases, claiming state-of-the-art accuracy, precision, recall, and AUC relative to seven baselines, alongside ablation studies and ROI interpretability analyses. The manuscript includes a public code link and detailed pseudocode for the proposed pipeline.

Significance. If the reported performance were trustworthy, STARFormer would be a meaningful advance for fMRI-based computer-aided diagnosis: it combines a biologically grounded spatial reordering (effective connectivity plus EC) with a windowed temporal transformer, and the authors provide a public implementation and extensive comparisons on two widely used datasets. The interpretability analysis identifying disorder-relevant ROIs is also a useful addition. However, the paper's central empirical claim is currently unsupported because the experimental protocol leaks information from the test set into the model's input representation. The significance of the work therefore hinges entirely on whether the authors can re-establish the state-of-the-art claim under a leakage-free protocol; as written, the results cannot be taken at face value.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5.3, Table 4] The EC-based ROI ordering is computed on 10% of patient samples randomly selected from the full dataset ("We randomly selected 10% of patient samples from the dataset as input into the ROI spatial structure analysis module") and is then applied via Eq. (10) to every subject's fMRI time series before the 10-fold cross-validation split is performed. The paper never states that this 10% subset is drawn from the training portion of each fold or that the ordering is recomputed per fold. Consequently, the ROI token order used for test-fold subjects is derived from a preprocessing step that has access to those subjects' time series (and, since only "patient samples" are used, to their labels). This is a classical cross-validation violation: the input representation is fit on a mixture of training and test data, which can inflate all reported metrics. The state-of-the-art claims in Tables 1 and 2, the ablation results in Table 3, and the interpretability analyses in Figs. 12-13 are therefore unsupported. The authors must either (a) compute the ROI ordering using only the training portion of each fold and recompute it per fold, or (b) use a nested cross-validation where the ordering is fit on the inner training data only, and then re-report all results.
  2. [Section 5.3, Table 4] The variable window configuration {16, 8, 4, 4, 8, 16} is selected based on the full test-set results on both datasets, and that same configuration is then used for the final reported model and the comparison tables. No independent validation set or nested cross-validation is used for this hyperparameter choice. This constitutes selection on the test data and introduces an additional optimistic bias into the reported accuracies and confidence intervals. The authors should either fix the window schedule a priori, or select it via an inner validation loop, and then re-evaluate on held-out test folds.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (7)] Equation (7) uses the index i for both the ROI and the patient summation: \bar{p}_i = (1/N) \sum_{i=1}^N p_i is formally incorrect. Use a separate patient index, e.g., \bar{p}_i = (1/N) \sum_{k=1}^N p_i^{(k)}.
  2. [Section 5.1] The text states that STARFormer "achieves optimal performance in each metric" and then immediately notes an exception for precision on ADHD-200; this is contradictory. Please rephrase to state that it achieves optimal or near-optimal performance in most metrics, or specify the exact exceptions.
  3. [Section 6.2] The Limitation section discusses graph encoding, phenotypic data, and semi-supervised learning, but it does not mention the most serious methodological risk: the use of a global 10% subset for ROI ordering before cross-validation. This omission should be corrected so that the limitations reflect the actual protocol concerns raised in this report.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical and formatting issues: "Temperal" in Algorithm 1, "Siminarly" in Section 6.1, and the title rendering "STARF ORMER" in the header. These do not affect the science but should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: STARFormer's central claim is an empirical benchmark result, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that STARFormer achieves state-of-the-art accuracy on ABIDE-I and ADHD-200, supported by 10-fold cross-validation experiments, ablation studies, and comparisons with public baselines. The ROI spatial reordering is computed from eigenvector centrality of a Granger-causality effective-connectivity matrix, and the temporal windowing and dual-branch transformer are architectural designs; no equation in Section 3 defines the reported accuracy or AUC in terms of the EC ordering, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The authors' prior works cited as references [8], [14], and [34] appear only as related work and are not load-bearing for the claimed results. No uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked, and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The main validity concern is the protocol in Section 4.2, where 10% of the full dataset is used to compute the EC-based ordering before the 10-fold split, which could leak test-fold information into the input token order. That is a data-leakage and correctness issue, not circularity under the definitions used here, because the reported performance is not identical to the EC-derived ordering by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a pipeline of data-derived preprocessing choices: Granger causality lag and threshold, the 10% subset for ROI ordering, the window schedule, and the extended window size. None of these are derived from theory, and most are tuned on the same datasets used for evaluation. The most consequential unstated assumption is that the ROI ordering is computed without using test-fold data; the paper does not say this.

free parameters (6)
  • Granger causality lag order h
    Not specified in Section 3.1. The binarized effective connectivity matrix G and the resulting eigenvector centrality ordering depend on this lag.
  • F-test significance threshold for Granger causality
    Section 3.1 binarizes Gij using an F-test but does not report the alpha level used to declare a connection.
  • ROI ordering subset fraction = 10%
    A randomly selected 10% of patients is used to compute the average EC vector; this fraction is chosen without justification and determines the leakage risk.
  • Variable window schedule = {16, 8, 4, 4, 8, 16}
    Selected as the best among five schedules on both datasets (Table 4) and used for the final reported results.
  • Extended window size = w/2
    Chosen by comparing w/4, w/2, and w (Figure 11); w/2 gives the best performance.
  • Temporal crop length = 128
    Time series are randomly cropped to 128 samples so they divide evenly into window tokens; this length affects all downstream computations.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Bivariate Granger causality on 128-point BOLD time series captures reliable effective connectivity between ROIs.
    Section 3.1 builds an autoregressive model and an F-test on the fMRI time series; this assumes stationarity, sufficient time points, and causal interpretability of the regressions.
  • domain assumption The average eigenvector centrality vector from a 10% sample of patients is a stable and transferable basis for reordering all subjects.
    Section 3.1 computes one average ordering and applies it to every subject, including test subjects; no stability analysis is provided.
  • domain assumption Grouping ROIs by the seven Yeo functional networks before sorting preserves biologically meaningful spatial structure.
    Section 3.1 groups ROIs into the seven functional networks and sorts within groups; this assumes the network parcellation is valid for both ASD and ADHD populations.
  • ad hoc to paper The 10% of patients used for ROI ordering does not overlap with test folds in the 10-fold cross-validation.
    Required for unbiased accuracy estimates; the paper never states this exclusion, and the natural reading of Section 4.2 implies overlap.
  • standard math Standard transformer components (layer norm, multi-head attention, MLP, GELU) work as described in the literature.
    The method relies on established transformer machinery without formal verification in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of STARFormer: A Novel Spatio-Temporal Aggregation Reorganization Transformer of FMRI for Brain Disorder Diagnosis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FFBIPNHG

@misc{pith2026250100378,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: STARFormer: A Novel Spatio-Temporal Aggregation Reorganization Transformer of FMRI for Brain Disorder Diagnosis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FFBIPNHG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00378}
}
read the original abstract

Many existing methods that use functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) classify brain disorders, such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), often overlook the integration of spatial and temporal dependencies of the blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) signals, which may lead to inaccurate or imprecise classification results. To solve this problem, we propose a Spatio-Temporal Aggregation eorganization ransformer (STARFormer) that effectively captures both spatial and temporal features of BOLD signals by incorporating three key modules. The region of interest (ROI) spatial structure analysis module uses eigenvector centrality (EC) to reorganize brain regions based on effective connectivity, highlighting critical spatial relationships relevant to the brain disorder. The temporal feature reorganization module systematically segments the time series into equal-dimensional window tokens and captures multiscale features through variable window and cross-window attention. The spatio-temporal feature fusion module employs a parallel transformer architecture with dedicated temporal and spatial branches to extract integrated features. The proposed STARFormer has been rigorously evaluated on two publicly available datasets for the classification of ASD and ADHD. The experimental results confirm that the STARFormer achieves state-of-the-art performance across multiple evaluation metrics, providing a more accurate and reliable tool for the diagnosis of brain disorders and biomedical research. The codes are available at: https://github.com/NZWANG/STARFormer.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00378 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Architecture of STARFormer in fMRI data for brain disorder diagnosis. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Architecture of the temporal feature reorganization module in STARFormer, which employs variable window [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. ROC curves for comparing the performance metrics of different methods on ABIDE-I and ADHD-200 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radar plots for comparing the performance metrics of different methods on ABIDE-I and ADHD-200 datasets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Confusion matrices for all classification methods on ABIDE-1 (a) and ADHD-200 (b) datasets using Schaefer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Classification accuracy with 95% confidence intervals for different methods on ABIDE-1 (a) and ADHD-200 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Cohen’s d effect sizes comparing different classification methods with STARFormer on ABIDE-1 (a) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: ROI Spatial Structure Analysis Module enhances spatial feature separability through EC reorganization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Temporal Feature Reorganization Module. (a) Variable window attention vs. global attention comparison. (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Spatio-Temporal Feature Fusion Module. (a) Dual-branch integration process from spatial and temporal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The comparison of the performance of STARFormer variants with the configurations of different extended [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Temporal attention analysis showing ROI importance across temporal branch. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Top 5% ROIs which are most important for ASD classification (a) and ADHD classification (b) according to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Learning functional brain networks with heterogeneous connectivities for brain 17 Published by Neural Networks disease identification

    Jingchao Zhou, Yuzhong Chen, Xuewei Jin, Wei Mao, Zhenxiang Xiao, Songyao Zhang, Tuo Zhang, Tianming Liu, Keith Kendrick, and Xi Jiang. Learning functional brain networks with heterogeneous connectivities for brain 17 Published by Neural Networks disease identification. Neural Networks, 180:106660, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet. 2024.106660

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Functional neurogenomics in autism spectrum disorders: A decade of progress

    Lucy K Bicks and DH Geschwind. Functional neurogenomics in autism spectrum disorders: A decade of progress. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 86:102858, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb. 2024.102858

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Neurobiology of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: historical challenges and emerging frontiers

    Sanju Koirala, Gracie Grimsrud, Michael A Mooney, Bart Larsen, Eric Feczko, Jed T Elison, Steven M Nelson, Joel T Nigg, Brenden Tervo-Clemmens, and Damien A Fair. Neurobiology of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: historical challenges and emerging frontiers. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 25:759–775, 2024. https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41583-024-00869-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41583-024-00869-z 2024

  4. [4]

    Functional network disruption in the degenerative dementias

    Michela Pievani, Willem de Haan, Tao Wu, William W Seeley, and Giovanni B Frisoni. Functional network disruption in the degenerative dementias. The Lancet Neurology, 10(9):829–843, 2011. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S1474-4422(11)70158-2

    work page doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(11)70158-2 2011

  5. [5]

    Disrupted brain functional network in internet addiction disorder: a resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging study.PloS One, 9(9):e107306, 2014

    Chong-Yaw Wee, Zhimin Zhao, Pew-Thian Yap, Guorong Wu, Feng Shi, True Price, Yasong Du, Jianrong Xu, Yan Zhou, and Dinggang Shen. Disrupted brain functional network in internet addiction disorder: a resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging study.PloS One, 9(9):e107306, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0107306

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Large-scale brain functional network topology disruptions underlie symptom heterogeneity in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

    Xing Qian, Francisco Xavier Castellanos, Lucina Q Uddin, Beatrice Rui Yi Loo, Siwei Liu, Hui Li Koh, Xue Wei Wendy Poh, Daniel Fung, Cuntai Guan, Tih-Shih Lee, et al. Large-scale brain functional network topology disruptions underlie symptom heterogeneity in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. NeuroImage: Clinical, 21:101600, 2019. htt...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2018.11.010 2019

  7. [7]

    Disentangle the group and individual components of functional connectome with autoencoders

    Zhaodi Pei, Zhiyuan Zhu, Zonglei Zhen, and Xia Wu. Disentangle the group and individual components of functional connectome with autoencoders. Neural Networks, 181:106786, 2025. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.neunet.2024.106786

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    MHNet: Multi-view High-order Network for Diagnosing Neurodevelopmental Disorders Using Resting-state fMRI

    Yueyang Li, Weiming Zeng, Wenhao Dong, Luhui Cai, Lei Wang, Hongyu Chen, Hongjie Yan, Lingbin Bian, and Nizhuan Wang. MHNet: Multi-view high-order network for diagnosing neurodevelopmental disorders using resting-state fMRI. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.03217, 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv. 2407.03217

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.03217 2024

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Jingchao Zhou, Yuzhong Chen, and Xuewei et al. Jin. Fusing multi-scale functional connectivity patterns via multi-branch vision transformer (MB-ViT) for macaque brain age prediction. Neural Networks, 179:106592,

  2. [10]

    Machine learning in resting- state fMRI analysis

    Meenakshi Khosla, Keith Jamison, Gia H Ngo, Amy Kuceyeski, and Mert R Sabuncu. Machine learning in resting- state fMRI analysis. Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 64:101–121, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. mri.2019.05.031

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    Diagnosis of brain diseases in fusion of neuroimaging modalities using deep learning: A review

    Afshin Shoeibi, Marjane Khodatars, Mahboobeh Jafari, Navid Ghassemi, Parisa Moridian, Roohallah Alizadehsani, Sai Ho Ling, Abbas Khosravi, Hamid Alinejad-Rokny, Hak-Keung Lam, et al. Diagnosis of brain diseases in fusion of neuroimaging modalities using deep learning: A review...

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeerv, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 2017. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2017/file/ 3f5ee243547dee...

    2017

  5. [13]

    Comprehensive review of transformer-based models in neuroscience, neurology, and psychiatry

    Shan Cong, Hang Wang, Yang Zhou, Zheng Wang, Xiaohui Yao, and Chunsheng Yang. Comprehensive review of transformer-based models in neuroscience, neurology, and psychiatry. Brain-X, 2(2):e57, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1002/brx2.57

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    Detection of Alzheimer’s disease in neuroimages using vision transformers: A systematic review and meta-analysis (preprint)

    Vivens Mubonanyikuzo, Hongjie Yan, Temitope Emmanuel Komolafe, Liang Zhou, Tao Wu, and Nizhuan Wang. Detection of Alzheimer’s disease in neuroimages using vision transformers: A systematic review and meta-analysis (preprint). Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2024. https:/...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Dynamic functional connectivity: promise, issues, and interpretations

    R Matthew Hutchison, Thilo Womelsdorf, Elena A Allen, Peter A Bandettini, Vince D Calhoun, Maurizio Corbetta, Stefania Della Penna, Jeff H Duyn, Gary H Glover, Javier Gonzalez-Castillo, et al. Dynamic functional connectivity: promise, issues, and interpretations. Neuroimage, 8...

    2013

  8. [16]

    LCGNet: Local sequential feature coupling global representation learning for functional connectivity 18 Published by Neural Networks network analysis with fMRI

    Jie Zhou, Biao Jie, Zhengdong Wang, Zhixiang Zhang, Tongchun Du, Weixin Bian, Yang Yang, and Jun Jia. LCGNet: Local sequential feature coupling global representation learning for functional connectivity 18 Published by Neural Networks network analysis with fMRI. IEEE Transacti...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Eigenvector centrality mapping for analyzing connectivity patterns in fmri data of the human brain

    Gabriele Lohmann, Daniel S Margulies, Annette Horstmann, Burkhard Pleger, Joeran Lepsien, Dirk Goldhahn, Haiko Schloegl, Michael Stumvoll, Arno Villringer, and Robert Turner. Eigenvector centrality mapping for analyzing connectivity patterns in fmri data of the human brain. Pl...

    2010

  10. [18]

    A cross-disorder connectome landscape of brain dyscon- nectivity

    Martijn P van den Heuvel and Olaf Sporns. A cross-disorder connectome landscape of brain dyscon- nectivity. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 20(7):435–446, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41583-019-0177-6

    2019

  11. [19]

    Li Juan Zheng, Gui Fen Yang, Xin Yuan Zhang, Yun Fei Wang, Ya Liu, Gang Zheng, Guang Ming Lu, Long Jiang Zhang, and Ying Han. Altered amygdala and hippocampus effective connectivity in mild cognitive impairment patients with depression: a resting-state functional mr imaging st...

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    Abnormalities of intrinsic functional connectivity in autism spectrum disorders

    Christopher S Monk, Scott J Peltier, Jillian Lee Wiggins, Shih-Jen Weng, Melisa Carrasco, Susan Risi, and Catherine Lord. Abnormalities of intrinsic functional connectivity in autism spectrum disorders. Neuroimage, 47(2):764–772, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.04.069

    2009 doi

  13. [21]

    Eigenvector centrality characterization on fMRI data: Gender and node differences in normal and ASD subjects

    Papri Saha. Eigenvector centrality characterization on fMRI data: Gender and node differences in normal and ASD subjects. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 54(7):2757–2768, 2024. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10803-023-05922-x

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    Be- tweenness centrality of intracranial electroencephalography networks and surgical epilepsy outcome

    Bartosz T Grobelny, Dennis London, Travis C Hill, Emily North, Patricia Dugan, and Werner K Doyle. Be- tweenness centrality of intracranial electroencephalography networks and surgical epilepsy outcome. Clinical Neurophysiology, 129(9):1804–1812, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/...

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    Changes in degree centrality of network nodes in different frequency bands in Parkinson’s disease with depression and without depression

    Haiyan Liao, Jinyao Yi, Sainan Cai, Qin Shen, Qinru Liu, Lin Zhang, Junli Li, Zhenni Mao, Tianyu Wang, Yuheng Zi, et al. Changes in degree centrality of network nodes in different frequency bands in Parkinson’s disease with depression and without depression. Frontiers in Neuro...

    2021

  16. [24]

    A deep dynamic causal learning model to study changes in dynamic effective connectivity during brain development

    Yingying Wang, Chen Qiao, Gang Qu, Vince D Calhoun, Julia M Stephen, Tony W Wilson, and Yu-Ping Wang. A deep dynamic causal learning model to study changes in dynamic effective connectivity during brain development. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 71(12):3390–3401...

    2024

  17. [25]

    Altered effective connectivity among the cerebellum and cerebrum in patients with major depressive disorder using multisite resting-state fMRI

    Peishan Dai, Xiaoyan Zhou, Tong Xiong, Yilin Ou, Zailiang Chen, Beiji Zou, Weihui Li, and Zhongchao Huang. Altered effective connectivity among the cerebellum and cerebrum in patients with major depressive disorder using multisite resting-state fMRI. The Cerebellum, 22(5):781–...

    2023

  18. [26]

    Effective connectivity within the default mode network: dynamic causal modeling of resting-state fMRI data

    Maksim G Sharaev, Viktoria V Zavyalova, Vadim L Ushakov, Sergey I Kartashov, and Boris M Velichkovsky. Effective connectivity within the default mode network: dynamic causal modeling of resting-state fMRI data. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10:14, 2016. https://doi.org/10.3...

    2016

  19. [27]

    Classifying ASD based on time-series fMRI using spatial–temporal transformer

    Xin Deng, Jiahao Zhang, Rui Liu, and Ke Liu. Classifying ASD based on time-series fMRI using spatial–temporal transformer. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 151:106320, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. compbiomed.2022.106320

    2022

  20. [28]

    Identifying autism from resting-state fMRI using long short-term memory networks

    Nicha C Dvornek, Pamela Ventola, Kevin A Pelphrey, and James S Duncan. Identifying autism from resting-state fMRI using long short-term memory networks. In Machine Learning in Medical Imaging: 8th International Workshop, MLMI 2017, Held in Conjunction with MICCAI 2017, Quebec ...

    2017

  21. [29]

    BolT: Fused window transformers for fMRI time series analysis

    Hasan A Bedel, Irmak Sivgin, Onat Dalmaz, Salman UH Dar, and Tolga Çukur. BolT: Fused window transformers for fMRI time series analysis. Medical Image Analysis, 88:102841, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. media.2023.102841

    2023

  22. [30]

    Multi modality fusion transformer with spatio-temporal feature aggregation module for psychiatric disorder diagnosis

    Guoxin Wang, Fengmei Fan, Sheng Shi, Shan An, Xuyang Cao, Wenshu Ge, Feng Yu, Qi Wang, Xiaole Han, Shuping Tan, et al. Multi modality fusion transformer with spatio-temporal feature aggregation module for psychiatric disorder diagnosis. Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphic...

    2024

  23. [31]

    2-channel convolutional 3D deep neural network (2CC3D) for fMRI analysis: ASD classification and feature learning

    Xiaoxiao Li, Nicha C Dvornek, Xenophon Papademetris, Juntang Zhuang, Lawrence H Staib, Pamela Ventola, and James S Duncan. 2-channel convolutional 3D deep neural network (2CC3D) for fMRI analysis: ASD classification and feature learning. In 2018 IEEE 15th International Symposi...

    2018

  24. [32]

    3D CNN based automatic diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder using functional and structural MRI

    Liang Zou, Jiannan Zheng, Chunyan Miao, Martin J Mckeown, and Z Jane Wang. 3D CNN based automatic diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder using functional and structural MRI. Ieee Access, 5:23626– 23636, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2762703

    2017

  25. [33]

    Spatial–temporal co- attention learning for diagnosis of mental disorders from resting-state fMRI data

    Rui Liu, Zhi-An Huang, Yao Hu, Zexuan Zhu, Ka-Chun Wong, and Kay Chen Tan. Spatial–temporal co- attention learning for diagnosis of mental disorders from resting-state fMRI data. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 35(8):10591–10605, 2023. https://doi.or...

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    STANet: A novel spatio-temporal aggregation network for depression classification with small and unbalanced FMRI data

    Wei Zhang, Weiming Zeng, Hongyu Chen, Jie Liu, Hongjie Yan, Kaile Zhang, Ran Tao, Wai Ting Siok, and Nizhuan Wang. STANet: A novel spatio-temporal aggregation network for depression classification with small and unbalanced FMRI data. Tomography, 10(12):1895–1914, 2024. https:/...

    1914

  27. [35]

    A spatiotemporal graph transformer approach for Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis with rs-fMRI.Computers in Biology and Medicine, 178:108762, 2024

    Peng He, Zhan Shi, Yaping Cui, Ruyan Wang, Dapeng Wu, Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, et al. A spatiotemporal graph transformer approach for Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis with rs-fMRI.Computers in Biology and Medicine, 178:108762, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.c...

    2024

  28. [36]

    Granger causality: A review and recent advances

    Ali Shojaie and Emily B Fox. Granger causality: A review and recent advances. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 9(1):289–319, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-statistics-040120-010930

    2022

  29. [37]

    The organization of the human cerebral cortex estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity

    BT Thomas Yeo, Fenna M Krienen, Jorge Sepulcre, Mert R Sabuncu, Danial Lashkari, Marisa Hollinshead, Joshua L Roffman, Jordan W Smoller, Lilla Zöllei, Jonathan R Polimeni, et al. The organization of the human cerebral cortex estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity. Jour...

  30. [38]

    Swin trans- former: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows

    Ze Liu, Yutong Lin, Yue Cao, Han Hu, Yixuan Wei, Zheng Zhang, Stephen Lin, and Baining Guo. Swin trans- former: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 10012–10022, 2021. https://d...

    2021

  31. [39]

    Focal self- attention for local-global interactions in vision transformers

    Jianwei Yang, Chunyuan Li, Pengchuan Zhang, Xiyang Dai, Bin Xiao, Lu Yuan, and Jianfeng Gao. Focal self- attention for local-global interactions in vision transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.00641, 2021. https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.00641

    2021 doi arXiv

  32. [40]

    Gaussian error linear units (GELUS)

    Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. Gaussian error linear units (GELUS). arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.08415, 2016. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1606.08415

    2016 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    The neuro bureau preprocessing initiative: open sharing of preprocessed neuroimaging data and derivatives.Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 7(27):5,

    Cameron Craddock, Yassine Benhajali, Carlton Chu, Francois Chouinard, Alan Evans, András Jakab, Budhachan- dra Singh Khundrakpam, John David Lewis, Qingyang Li, Michael Milham, et al. The neuro bureau preprocessing initiative: open sharing of preprocessed neuroimaging data and...

  34. [42]

    The neuro bureau ADHD-200 preprocessed repository

    Pierre Bellec, Carlton Chu, Francois Chouinard-Decorte, Yassine Benhajali, Daniel S Margulies, and R Cameron Craddock. The neuro bureau ADHD-200 preprocessed repository. Neuroimage, 144:275–286, 2017. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.06.034

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    Towards automated analysis of connectomes: The configurable pipeline for the analysis of connectomes (C-PAC)

    Cameron Craddock, Sharad Sikka, Brian Cheung, Ranjeet Khanuja, Satrajit S Ghosh, Chaogan Yan, Qingyang Li, Daniel Lurie, Joshua V ogelstein, Randal Burns, et al. Towards automated analysis of connectomes: The configurable pipeline for the analysis of connectomes (C-PAC). Front...

    2013 doi

  36. [44]

    Local-global parcellation of the human cerebral cortex from intrinsic functional connectivity MRI

    Alexander Schaefer, Ru Kong, Evan M Gordon, Timothy O Laumann, Xi-Nian Zuo, Avram J Holmes, Simon B Eickhoff, and BT Thomas Yeo. Local-global parcellation of the human cerebral cortex from intrinsic functional connectivity MRI. Cerebral Cortex, 28(9):3095–3114, 2018. https://d...

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    Automated anatomical labeling of activations in SPM using a macroscopic anatomical parcellation of the MNI MRI single-subject brain

    Nathalie Tzourio-Mazoyer, Brigitte Landeau, Dimitri Papathanassiou, Fabrice Crivello, Octave Etard, Nicolas Delcroix, Bernard Mazoyer, and Marc Joliot. Automated anatomical labeling of activations in SPM using a macroscopic anatomical parcellation of the MNI MRI single-subject...

    2002

  38. [46]

    Deriving reproducible biomarkers from multi-site resting-state data: An Autism- based example

    Alexandre Abraham, Michael P Milham, Adriana Di Martino, R Cameron Craddock, Dimitris Samaras, Bertrand Thirion, and Gael Varoquaux. Deriving reproducible biomarkers from multi-site resting-state data: An Autism- based example. NeuroImage, 147:736–745, 2017. https://doi.org/10...

    2017 doi

  39. [47]

    BrainNetCNN: Convolutional neural networks for brain networks; towards predicting neurodevelopment

    Jeremy Kawahara, Colin J Brown, Steven P Miller, Brian G Booth, Vann Chau, Ruth E Grunau, Jill G Zwicker, and Ghassan Hamarneh. BrainNetCNN: Convolutional neural networks for brain networks; towards predicting neurodevelopment. NeuroImage, 146:1038–1049, 2017. https://doi.org/...

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    Community-aware trans- former for autism prediction in fmri connectome

    Anushree Bannadabhavi, Soojin Lee, Wenlong Deng, Rex Ying, and Xiaoxiao Li. Community-aware trans- former for autism prediction in fmri connectome. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 287–297. Springer, 2023. https:/...

    2023

  41. [49]

    Mianxin Liu, Han Zhang, Feng Shi, and Dinggang Shen. Hierarchical graph convolutional network built by multi- scale atlases for brain disorder diagnosis using functional connectivity.IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 35(11):15182–15194, 2023. https://d...

    2023

  42. [50]

    Residual graph transformer for autism spectrum disorder prediction

    Yibin Wang, Haixia Long, Tao Bo, and Jianwei Zheng. Residual graph transformer for autism spectrum disorder prediction. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 247:108065, 2024. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.cmpb.2024.108065

    2024

  43. [51]

    PlsNet: Position-aware GCN-based autism spectrum disorder diagnosis via fc learning and rois sifting

    Yibin Wang, Haixia Long, Qianwei Zhou, Tao Bo, and Jianwei Zheng. PlsNet: Position-aware GCN-based autism spectrum disorder diagnosis via fc learning and rois sifting. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 163:107184,

  44. [52]

    Reduced neural habituation in the amygdala and social impairments in autism spectrum disorders

    Natalia M Kleinhans, L Clark Johnson, Todd Richards, Roderick Mahurin, Jessica Greenson, Geraldine Dawson, and Elizabeth Aylward. Reduced neural habituation in the amygdala and social impairments in autism spectrum disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 166(4):467–475, 200...

    2009 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Functional MRI reveals different response inhibition between adults and children with ADHD

    Du Lei, Mingying Du, Min Wu, Taolin Chen, Xiaoqi Huang, Xiaoxia Du, Feng Bi, Graham J Kemp, and Qiyong Gong. Functional MRI reveals different response inhibition between adults and children with ADHD. Neuropsychology, 29(6):874, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/neu0000200

    2015 doi

  46. [54]

    Maja Kobel, Nina Bechtel, Karsten Specht, Markus Klarhöfer, Peter Weber, Klaus Scheffler, Klaus Opwis, and Iris-Katharina Penner. Structural and functional imaging approaches in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: does the temporal lobe play a key role? Psychiatry Resear...

    2010 doi

  47. [55]

    Preserving specificity in federated graph learning for fMRI-based neurological disorder identification

    Junhao Zhang, Qianqian Wang, Xiaochuan Wang, Lishan Qiao, and Mingxia Liu. Preserving specificity in federated graph learning for fMRI-based neurological disorder identification. Neural Networks, 169:584–596, 2024. 21

    2024

  48. [2011]

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00338.2011

    2011

  49. [2013]

    https://doi.org/10.3389/conf.fninf.2013.09.00041

    2013 doi

  50. [2023]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.107184

    2023

  51. [2024]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2024.106592

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.