Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 47 references

FedDOSE: Federated Learning Framework Decomposing Site Effects for Modeling Brain Dynamic Functional Connectivity

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 FedDOSE, a federated learning framework for dynamic brain connectivity, splits site differences into disease, phenotype, and scanner subspaces and outperforms seven federated baselines on three multi-site fMRI datasets.

desk verdict Solid FL-for-fMRI paper whose accuracy gains are credible, but the 'orthogonal subspace decomposition' mechanism is asserted more strongly than it is demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07393 v1 pith:UYIZHVUZ submitted 2026-08-07 cs.LG eess.SPq-bio.NC

Deepank Girish , Yi Hao Chan , Yubin Zheng , Sukrit Gupta , Jagath C. Rajapakse This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGeess.SPq-bio.NC
keywords federatedlearningdynamicfunctionalconnectivitysiteeffectdecompositionTuckeroptimaltransportProcrustesanalysisautismspectrumdisorderADHD
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 claims that federated models trained on multi-site fMRI struggle not merely because of distribution shift but because site differences remain entangled, and that explicitly decomposing site variability into disease, phenotype, and scanner subspaces, then aligning class prototypes across sites, yields a privacy-preserving model that approaches centralized accuracy. The framework, FedDOSE, works on dynamic functional connectivity (dFC), which changes on the order of seconds, rather than the static connectivity most federated fMRI methods use. On ABIDE-I, ABIDE-II, and ADHD-200, FedDOSE beats seven federated baselines on both site-level and global accuracy, with the largest gains on the most heterogeneous datasets, and comes within roughly 2 percentage points of a centralized upper bound on ABIDE-I. If the claim holds, multi-site psychiatric imaging studies can pool data across institutions without sharing raw scans and with only a small accuracy penalty.

What carries the argument

The core structural elements are the Modularity-Guided Tucker Decomposition (MGTKD) block, which compresses each subject's high-dimensional dFC tensor into per-module core tensors and shared spatial and temporal factors while preserving brain modular structure; the softmax-gated masks of Equation (5), which partition the aggregated core-tensor variance into three subspaces; and the two-stage global aggregation in which an optimal-transport barycenter (Equation 11) defines a reference prototype distribution and Procrustes analysis (Equation 12) rotates each site's prototypes into that shared reference before weighted aggregation. The MGTKD block supplies compressed, interpretable features; the gating supplies the claimed separation of site effects; and the OT-Procrustes alignment corrects for the misalignment of latent components across independently decomposed sites.

What would settle it

Train a scanner classifier on the disease-space embedding z_d after FedDOSE training; if its accuracy is significantly above chance, or if the Frobenius norm of the product of the disease and scanner masks M_d ⊙ M_v is large relative to the individual masks, the claimed subspace separation has not been achieved.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that explicit, supervised decomposition of site effects into three learned subspaces—disease, phenotype, and scanner—carried by softmax-gated masks on a modular Tucker decomposition of dynamic functional connectivity tensors, combined with optimal-transport barycenter and Procrustes alignment of class prototypes, lets federated models nearly match centralized performance. The authors establish this through experiments on three multi-site datasets, showing that FedDOSE consistently achieves the highest site and global accuracy across all sites, with an average improvement of about 4 percent over the strongest baseline on ABIDE-I and ABIDE-II and about 3 percent on ADHD-200. Cross-site generalization accuracy also exceeds that of all baselines, and the ablation study shows that removing the phenotype and scanner losses, the Procrustes alignment, the optimal-transport reference, or the prototype regularization each degrades performance, indicating that the decomposition and alignment are what drive the gains.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes the softmax-gated masks partition the aggregated core tensor into truly orthogonal disease, phenotype, and scanner subspaces, and that the gradient-reversal scanner losses erase scanner variance without removing disease-relevant signal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • FedDOSE narrows or closes the gap to a centralized, privacy-violating upper bound on site accuracy across all three datasets, making federated learning a viable route for multi-site rs-fMRI consortia.
  • The explicit decomposition of site differences, rather than a generic domatin-adversarial or harmonization step, is what drives the accuracy gains, as shown by the ablation results on ABIDE-I.
  • Because the framework operates on dynamic connectivity, it captures temporal connectivity fluctuations that static-connectivity federated methods miss, which may improve detection of neurodevelopmental disorders.
  • Cross-site generalization accuracy is highest for FedDOSE, indicating that the learned representations capture invariant disease features rather than site-specific memorization.
  • The modular biomarker analysis, based on outer products of spatial factors, flags connections involving sensorimotor and dorsal attention networks that align with existing ASD literature, suggesting a path toward interpretable federated biomarkers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The orthogonality of the three subspaces is asserted but not measured; one could directly test whether the disease and scanner masks overlap substantially, which would predict partial confounding in the disease embedding.
  • If the decomposition works as intended, the same framework could be ported to other multi-site neuroimaging modalities or to harmonization tasks, replacing post-hoc batch correction with a supervised, task-aligned decomposition that is learned end-to-end.
  • Because the global prototype is built from aligned spatio-temporal coupling maps, FedDOSE might serve not only as a classifier but also as a method for cross-site discovery of dynamic connectivity biomarkers, although the paper does not pursue this direction.
  • The reported gains of roughly 2 to 4 percent, while consistent, are modest; the strongest test of the decomposition rationale would be whether the advantage persists under larger scanner variability or with noisier disease labels.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes FedDOSE, a federated learning framework for multi-site resting-state fMRI analysis that models dynamic functional connectivity (dFC). The framework combines a Modularity-Guided Tucker Decomposition (MGTKD) block for dimensionality reduction, a softmax-gated decomposition of the aggregated core tensor into disease, phenotype, and scanner subspaces, and a prototype-alignment mechanism based on optimal transport barycenters and Procrustes analysis. The authors evaluate FedDOSE on three public datasets (ABIDE-I, ABIDE-II, ADHD-200) using three selected sites per dataset, reporting site and global accuracy improvements over several federated learning baselines, plus ablations, sensitivity analyses, and a biomarker illustration. The central claim is that FedDOSE outperforms existing FL methods in both site and global accuracy and that this improvement stems from explicitly decomposing site differences into separable disease, phenotype, and scanner subspaces.

Significance. If the proposed decomposition mechanism were rigorously established, FedDOSE would be a meaningful contribution to privacy-preserving multi-site fMRI analysis: it targets dynamic connectivity rather than static FC, introduces a modular tensor-decomposition block that leverages known brain architecture, and combines prototype learning with OT-based alignment to handle site heterogeneity. The paper includes a reasonably broad set of baselines, per-site results, ablations, a cross-site generalization study, and a sensitivity analysis, which are useful for assessing the empirical behavior of the framework. However, the paper does not provide code, uses a post hoc subset of sites, and the central explanatory claim—that the accuracy gains arise from decomposing site effects into orthogonal subspaces—is not supported by any direct measurement or identifiability argument. The empirical results are internally consistent and suggest that the added losses help, but they do not yet substantiate the proposed mechanism as the cause of the observed gains.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3, Eq. (5)] The paper states that softmax-based gating 'partitions the variance in the core tensors into three orthogonal subspaces,' but the construction in Eq. (5) does not enforce or imply orthogonality. A softmax over the three mask channels produces strictly positive weights, so the masked tensors M_d⊙G, M_b⊙G, and M_v⊙G overlap and are not a partition of the core-tensor variance. No orthogonality or identifiability constraint is imposed on the masks or on the resulting embeddings z_d, z_b, z_v; the orthonormality penalty in Eq. (4) applies only to the spatial factors U_s^m. Because the subspace-decomposition rationale is the paper's novelty claim, the authors should provide direct evidence of separation—for example, cosine similarities between the embeddings, overlap measures of the masked tensors, or an ablation that uses hard one-hot masks—or temper the claim to state that the losses encourage separation rather than enforce it.
  2. [§4.4, Tables 1–4] The conclusion that 'FedDOSE outperforms other FL methods' is not supported by the reported significance tests with respect to the strongest baseline. In Tables 1, 2, and 4, none of the FedDOSE versus FedGMKD comparisons are marked with an asterisk, and several FedDOSE versus FedAli comparisons also lack asterisks. With only five seeds, the Mann-Whitney U test has very low power, so the absence of a significant difference does not establish superiority. The authors should report effect sizes with confidence intervals, use a paired test across seeds, or increase the number of seeds, and should frame the headline claim accordingly.
  3. [§4.1, Datasets and Preprocessing] The evaluation uses only three selected sites per dataset rather than the full multi-site data, and the selection is made post hoc by the authors (e.g., excluding NI for low sample size and KKI/WUSTL for severe class imbalance in ADHD-200). This selection is performed on the same datasets used for evaluation, which undermines the generalizability claim and can bias the comparison if excluded sites are more heterogeneous. Moreover, the abstract states 'approximately 2000 subjects,' but the selected cohort contains about 1,368 subjects (ABIDE-I: 323, ABIDE-II: 218, ADHD-200: 827). Please either report results on all available sites (or a pre-registered split), justify why the selection is not outcome-dependent, and correct the subject count in the abstract.
  4. [§3.3, Eq. (6)] The gradient-reversal scanner loss encourages z_d and z_b to be poor predictors of scanner labels, but it does not guarantee that disease-relevant signal is preserved. If scanner variation correlates with disease or phenotype (which is common in multi-site studies), the GRL can remove informative variance and degrade performance. The paper does not measure how much scanner information remains in z_d after training, nor how disease accuracy varies under scanner shift. The authors should add a quantitative analysis, such as scanner-label prediction accuracy from z_d before and after the GRL, or a stratified evaluation where each site's model is tested on the other sites (they do provide cross-site generalization in Table 5, but without isolating scanner effects). This is necessary to substantiate the claim that the decomposition separates scanner variance without erasing disease signal.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract's initial description of the datasets is inaccurate: the paper uses a subset of each dataset, not the full ABIDE-I, ABIDE-II, and ADHD-200 cohorts, and the total number of subjects is about 1,368, not 'approximately 2000.' Please adjust the abstract to reflect the actual experimental cohort.
  2. [§3.1, Eq. (1)] The notation 'log(X)' is ambiguous for a tensor X∈R^{N×N×T}; it should specify that the matrix logarithm is applied per temporal slice X_t. Also, Eq. (1) uses ×_1 and ×_2 with B_m^T, which selects ROIs, but it is not clear whether the temporal dimension is indexed by the third mode; a brief clarification would help.
  3. [§3.5, Eq. (11)] The optimal transport barycenter in Eq. (11) is written for distributions p and p_k, but the prototypes p_k are matrices or vectors, not distributions. Please specify how the 2-Wasserstein distance is computed for these prototypes (e.g., by treating each prototype's columns as empirical samples or by defining a matrix distance).
  4. [§4.5, Table 3] The text states that removing the phenotypic and scanner subspaces leads to a 'significant drop in performance,' but not all ablations are statistically significant relative to FedDOSE; for example, the w/o OT and w/o L_proto rows have no asterisks in several columns. Please qualify the strength of the ablation conclusions.
  5. [§4.6, Sensitivity Analysis] The sentence 'performance with respect to λ typically peaked at 0.2 before declining' is ambiguous because the analysis reports global accuracy only; please state whether the stated trends refer to global accuracy, site accuracy, or a specific site, and consider reporting the variability across seeds.
  6. [Reproducibility] No code or implementation details are provided beyond the text. For a federated learning method, releasing code (or at least a pseudocode/pipeline description) would substantially improve reproducibility and allow others to verify the subspace-decomposition behavior.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: FedDOSE's gains are empirical against external baselines, and the lone self-citation [9] is background only.

full rationale

FedDOSE's central claims are empirical: classification performance is measured on held-out test splits of three public multi-site datasets and compared against seven external baselines plus local and centralized settings. The local objective in Eq. 10 is a standard combination of reconstruction loss, task loss, invariance losses, and prototype alignment; no reported accuracy number is obtained by feeding the target quantity back into the model, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The only self-citation, reference [9], supports a generic background sentence about deep learning in fMRI analysis and is not load-bearing for any architectural or theoretical premise. No uniqueness theorem or prior-work-derived ansatz is imported from the authors: the Tucker decomposition, optimal transport barycenter, and Procrustes analysis are all cited to external literature. The concern raised in Section 3.3 about softmax-gated masks not actually enforcing orthogonal subspaces is a validity or identifiability gap, not circularity: the masks are trained with losses, and the paper's explanation that gains stem from the decomposition is an interpretation of ablations, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs. Accordingly, the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks, and the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The framework's central claim rests on a large stack of unverified modeling choices: fixed atlas modules, fixed window size, a Riemannian log approximation, a rotation-based prototype alignment assumption, and an untested subspace-separation mechanism. Loss weights and Tucker ranks are tuned or fitted. No code or data artifacts accompany the paper, so these choices cannot be audited independently.

free parameters (5)
  • Tucker ranks R_s and R_t = not reported; chosen by hand
    Control the compression in the MGTKD block (Eqs 2 and 3); the paper never states the values used, so the retained spatiotemporal structure is underspecified.
  • Loss weights mu, gamma, lambda = mu=0.05, gamma=0.1, lambda=0.2
    Selected by grid search on the ABIDE-I validation set (Sections 4.3 and 4.6); the central results depend on these tuned values.
  • Sliding window length and stride = 60 s window, 1 s stride
    Defines the dFC tensor; adopted from recommended practice but not varied, so the temporal granularity of the claimed dynamics is an input choice.
  • Number of modules M' from Power atlas = 8 modules
    The modular partition is a fixed modeling choice; other atlases or module counts could change the decomposition and downstream accuracy.
  • Training schedule hyperparameters = batch 8, lr 0.005, 40 rounds, 5 local epochs
    Standard optimization constants; they are not the scientific claim but are part of the unreleased experimental configuration.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption dFC matrices are symmetric positive semidefinite and the Riemannian matrix logarithm maps them to a Euclidean tangent space at the identity.
    Invoked in Section 3.2 before Eq 1 to justify applying Euclidean Tucker decomposition to log-mapped tensors.
  • domain assumption Fixed Power-atlas modular structure (eight modules) is a valid grouping of the 264 ROIs for every subject and is preserved after the orthogonal minimal spanning tree filter.
    Sections 3.2 and 4.1 use this partition to build modular subtensors; a wrong grouping would corrupt spatiotemporal factors.
  • domain assumption Site-specific latent prototype spaces are related by rotation, so OT-barycenter plus Procrustes alignment is sufficient to make prototypes comparable across sites.
    Section 3.5, Eqs 11 to 13: the alignment strategy only corrects rotational and order ambiguity, not arbitrary nonlinear cross-site differences.
  • ad hoc to paper Softmax gating and the disease, phenotype, and scanner losses separate site variance into independent subspaces without discarding disease signal.
    Section 3.3, Eqs 5 and 6: this is the core mechanism for decomposing site effects; no identifiability or orthogonality proof is given.
  • standard math Mathematical tools (Tucker decomposition, OT barycenter, Procrustes SVD) are correct as imported from the cited literature.
    Sections 3.2 and 3.5 rely on these standard results without rederivation.
invented entities (1)
  • Disease, phenotype, and scanner subspaces
    purpose: Latent partitions of the compressed dFC representation used to isolate diagnostic, demographic, and scanner variance (Eqs 5 and 6).
    No external validation or identifiability check shows these latent streams actually correspond to disease, phenotype, and scanner effects; they are internal model constructs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FedDOSE: Federated Learning Framework Decomposing Site Effects for Modeling Brain Dynamic Functional Connectivity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UYIZHVUZ

@misc{pith2026260807393,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FedDOSE: Federated Learning Framework Decomposing Site Effects for Modeling Brain Dynamic Functional Connectivity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UYIZHVUZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07393}
}
read the original abstract

Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging ( fMRI ) data are often pooled into collaborative multi-site consortia, as deep learning models for analyses require large datasets to generalize well. While Federated Learning (FL) offers a privacy-preserving paradigm for collaborative training, standard approaches continue to struggle with statistical heterogeneity. In particular, site differences pose a key challenge in multi-site data settings. Additionally, existing FL approaches for fMRI rely on static Functional Connectivity ( FC), omitting dynamic information in brain networks. To address this, we propose FedDOSE, a novel framework that explicitly decomposes site differences for analysis of dynamic FC (dFC). FedDOSE introduces a Modularity-Guided Tucker Decomposition block to encode high-dimensional dFC tensors and capture modular-level spatio-temporal patterns efficiently. Class-specific prototypes are generated across all sites and subsequently aligned at the global level by using a combination of Optimal Transport (OT) barycenter formulation and Procrustes analysis. Extensive experiments for diagnosing Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) on three multi-site resting-state fMRI datasets: ABIDE-I, ABIDE-II, and ADHD-200, demonstrate that FedDOSE outperforms state-of-the-art methods in ASD and ADHD detection. Our results highlight its effectiveness in learning robust representations from multi-site datasets for reliable analysis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07393 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed FedDOSE framework. At the local level, the Modularity-Guided [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FedDOSE mean global accuracy on the ABIDE-I dataset for different hyperparameter pairs: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Chord diagrams representing site-specific salient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Procrustes-based distances for exploring between-matrices similarity.Statistical Methods & Applications, 32(3):867–882, 2023

    Angela Andreella, Riccardo De Santis, Anna Vesely, and Livio Finos. Procrustes-based distances for exploring between-matrices similarity.Statistical Methods & Applications, 32(3):867–882, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Adhd-200 global compe- tition: diagnosing adhd using personal characteristic data can outperform resting state fmri measurements.Frontiers in systems neuroscience, 6:69, 2012

    Matthew RG Brown, Gagan S Sidhu, Russell Greiner, Nasimeh Asgarian, Meysam Bastani, Peter H Silverstone, Andrew J Greenshaw, and Serdar M Dursun. Adhd-200 global compe- tition: diagnosing adhd using personal characteristic data can outperform resting state fmri measurements.Frontiers in systems neuroscience, 6:69, 2012

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Biomarker definitions and their applications.Experimental biology and medicine, 243(3):213–221, 2018

    Robert M Califf. Biomarker definitions and their applications.Experimental biology and medicine, 243(3):213–221, 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Enhancing studies of the connectome in autism using the autism brain imaging data exchange ii.Scientific data, 4(1):1–15, 2017

    Adriana Di Martino, David O’connor, Bosi Chen, Kaat Alaerts, Jeffrey S Anderson, Michal Assaf, Joshua H Balsters, Leslie Baxter, Anita Beggiato, Sylvie Bernaerts, et al. Enhancing studies of the connectome in autism using the autism brain imaging data exchange ii.Scientific data, 4(1):1–15, 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    The autism brain imaging data exchange: towards a large-scale evaluation of the intrinsic brain architecture in autism.Molecular psychiatry, 19(6):659–667, 2014

    Adriana Di Martino, Chao-Gan Yan, Qingyang Li, Erin Denio, Francisco X Castellanos, Kaat Alaerts, Jeffrey S Anderson, Michal Assaf, Susan Y Bookheimer, Mirella Dapretto, et al. The autism brain imaging data exchange: towards a large-scale evaluation of the intrinsic brain architecture in autism.Molecular psychiatry, 19(6):659–667, 2014

    2014

  6. [6]

    Stavros I Dimitriadis, Christos Salis, Ioannis Tarnanas, and David E Linden. Topological filtering of dynamic functional brain networks unfolds informative chronnectomics: a novel data-driven thresholding scheme based on orthogonal minimal spanning trees (omsts).Frontiers in neuroinformatics, 11:28, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Fedali: Per- sonalized federated learning alignment with prototype layers for generalized mobile services

    Sannara Ek, Kaile Wang, François Portet, Philippe Lalanda, and Jiannong Cao. Fedali: Per- sonalized federated learning alignment with prototype layers for generalized mobile services. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.10595, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Unsupervised domain adaptation by backpropagation

    Yaroslav Ganin and Victor Lempitsky. Unsupervised domain adaptation by backpropagation. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 1180–1189. PMLR, 2015

    2015

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Encoding and decoding of brain dynamic functional connectivity for adhd diagnosis.IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 2026

    Deepank Girish, Yi Hao Chan, Sukrit Gupta, Jing Xia, and Jagath C Rajapakse. Encoding and decoding of brain dynamic functional connectivity for adhd diagnosis.IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 2026

    2026

  2. [10]

    Generalized procrustes analysis.Psychometrika, 40(1):33–51, 1975

    John C Gower. Generalized procrustes analysis.Psychometrika, 40(1):33–51, 1975

    1975

  3. [11]

    Tucker decomposition for extracting shared and individual spatial maps from multi-subject resting-state fmri data

    Yue Han, Qiu-Hua Lin, Li-Dan Kuang, Xiao-Feng Gong, Fengyu Cong, and Vince D Calhoun. Tucker decomposition for extracting shared and individual spatial maps from multi-subject resting-state fmri data. InICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Si...

    2021

  4. [12]

    A core tensor sparsity enhancement method for solving tucker-2 model of multi-subject fmri data.Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 95:106471, 2024

    Yue Han, Qiu-Hua Lin, Li-Dan Kuang, Bin-Hua Zhao, Xiao-Feng Gong, Fengyu Cong, Yu-Ping Wang, and Vince D Calhoun. A core tensor sparsity enhancement method for solving tucker-2 model of multi-subject fmri data.Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 95:106471, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Federated multi-task learning for joint diagnosis of multiple mental disorders on mri scans

    Zhi-An Huang, Yao Hu, Rui Liu, Xiaoming Xue, Zexuan Zhu, Linqi Song, and Kay Chen Tan. Federated multi-task learning for joint diagnosis of multiple mental disorders on mri scans. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 70(4):1137–1149, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Communication-efficient on-device machine learning: Federated distillation and augmen- tation under non-iid private data.arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.11479, 2018

    Eunjeong Jeong, Seungeun Oh, Hyesung Kim, Jihong Park, Mehdi Bennis, and Seong-Lyun Kim. Communication-efficient on-device machine learning: Federated distillation and augmen- tation under non-iid private data.arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.11479, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Adjusting batch effects in microarray expression data using empirical bayes methods.Biostatistics, 8(1):118–127, 2007

    W Evan Johnson, Cheng Li, and Ariel Rabinovic. Adjusting batch effects in microarray expression data using empirical bayes methods.Biostatistics, 8(1):118–127, 2007. 11

    2007

  8. [16]

    Energy-guided continuous entropic barycenter estimation for general costs.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:107513–107546, 2024

    Alexander Kolesov, Petr Mokrov, Igor Udovichenko, Milena Gazdieva, Gudmund Pammer, Anastasis Kratsios, Evgeny Burnaev, and Alexander Korotin. Energy-guided continuous entropic barycenter estimation for general costs.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:107513–...

    2024

  9. [17]

    On spurious and real fluctuations of dynamic functional connectivity during rest.Neuroimage, 104:430–436, 2015

    Nora Leonardi and Dimitri Van De Ville. On spurious and real fluctuations of dynamic functional connectivity during rest.Neuroimage, 104:430–436, 2015

    2015

  10. [18]

    Multi-site fmri analysis using privacy-preserving federated learning and domain adaptation: Abide results.Medical image analysis, 65:101765, 2020

    Xiaoxiao Li, Yufeng Gu, Nicha Dvornek, Lawrence H Staib, Pamela Ventola, and James S Duncan. Multi-site fmri analysis using privacy-preserving federated learning and domain adaptation: Abide results.Medical image analysis, 65:101765, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Braingnn: Interpretable brain graph neural network for fmri analysis.Medical image analysis, 74:102233, 2021

    Xiaoxiao Li, Yuan Zhou, Nicha Dvornek, Muhan Zhang, Siyuan Gao, Juntang Zhuang, Dustin Scheinost, Lawrence H Staib, Pamela Ventola, and James S Duncan. Braingnn: Interpretable brain graph neural network for fmri analysis.Medical image analysis, 74:102233, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Patterns of brain dynamic functional connectivity are linked with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder-related behavioral and cognitive dimensions

    Lekai Luo, Lizhou Chen, Yuxia Wang, Qian Li, Ning He, Yuanyuan Li, Wanfang You, Yaxuan Wang, Fenghua Long, Lanting Guo, et al. Patterns of brain dynamic functional connectivity are linked with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder-related behavioral and cognitive dimensions...

    2023

  13. [21]

    Fedgst: Federated graph spatio-temporal framework for brain functional disease prediction

    Junbin Mao, Hanhe Lin, Xu Tian, Yi Pan, and Jin Liu. Fedgst: Federated graph spatio-temporal framework for brain functional disease prediction. In2023 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), pages 1356–1361. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data

    Brendan McMahan, Eider Moore, Daniel Ramage, Seth Hampson, and Blaise Aguera y Arcas. Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. InArtificial intelligence and statistics, pages 1273–1282. Pmlr, 2017

    2017

  15. [23]

    Scanner invariant representations for diffusion mri harmonization.Magnetic resonance in medicine, 84(4):2174– 2189, 2020

    Daniel Moyer, Greg Ver Steeg, Chantal MW Tax, and Paul M Thompson. Scanner invariant representations for diffusion mri harmonization.Magnetic resonance in medicine, 84(4):2174– 2189, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Transport on riemannian manifold for connectivity-based brain decoding.IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 35(1):208–216, 2015

    Bernard Ng, Gael Varoquaux, Jean Baptiste Poline, Michael Greicius, and Bertrand Thirion. Transport on riemannian manifold for connectivity-based brain decoding.IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 35(1):208–216, 2015

    2015

  17. [25]

    Fedni: Federated graph learning with network inpainting for population-based disease prediction.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 42(7):2032–2043, 2022

    Liang Peng, Nan Wang, Nicha Dvornek, Xiaofeng Zhu, and Xiaoxiao Li. Fedni: Federated graph learning with network inpainting for population-based disease prediction.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 42(7):2032–2043, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Now Foundations and Trends, 2019

    Gabriel Peyré and Marco Cuturi.Computational optimal transport: With applications to data science. Now Foundations and Trends, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    Functional network organization of the human brain.Neuron, 72(4):665–678, 2011

    Jonathan D Power, Alexander L Cohen, Steven M Nelson, Gagan S Wig, Kelly Anne Barnes, Jessica A Church, Alecia C V ogel, Timothy O Laumann, Fran M Miezin, Bradley L Schlaggar, et al. Functional network organization of the human brain.Neuron, 72(4):665–678, 2011

    2011

  20. [28]

    Multi-institutional deep learning modeling without sharing patient data: A feasibility study on brain tumor segmentation

    Micah J Sheller, G Anthony Reina, Brandon Edwards, Jason Martin, and Spyridon Bakas. Multi-institutional deep learning modeling without sharing patient data: A feasibility study on brain tumor segmentation. InInternational MICCAI Brainlesion Workshop, pages 92–104. Springer, 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    Modular brain networks.Annual review of psychology, 67(1):613–640, 2016

    Olaf Sporns and Richard F Betzel. Modular brain networks.Annual review of psychology, 67(1):613–640, 2016

    2016

  22. [30]

    Personalized federated learning with moreau envelopes.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:21394–21405, 2020

    Canh T Dinh, Nguyen Tran, and Josh Nguyen. Personalized federated learning with moreau envelopes.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:21394–21405, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Unsupervised alignment in neuroscience: Introducing a toolbox for gromov–wasserstein optimal transport.Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 419:110443, 2025

    Ken Takeda, Masaru Sasaki, Kota Abe, and Masafumi Oizumi. Unsupervised alignment in neuroscience: Introducing a toolbox for gromov–wasserstein optimal transport.Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 419:110443, 2025. 12

    2025

  24. [32]

    Fedproto: Federated prototype learning across heterogeneous clients

    Yue Tan, Guodong Long, Lu Liu, Tianyi Zhou, Qinghua Lu, Jing Jiang, and Chengqi Zhang. Fedproto: Federated prototype learning across heterogeneous clients. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 36, pages 8432–8440, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Some mathematical notes on three-mode factor analysis.Psychometrika, 31(3):279–311, 1966

    Ledyard R Tucker. Some mathematical notes on three-mode factor analysis.Psychometrika, 31(3):279–311, 1966

    1966

  26. [34]

    Comparing functional connectivity matrices: A geometry-aware approach applied to participant identification.NeuroImage, 207:116398, 2020

    Manasij Venkatesh, Joseph Jaja, and Luiz Pessoa. Comparing functional connectivity matrices: A geometry-aware approach applied to participant identification.NeuroImage, 207:116398, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Federated evaluation of on-device personalization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.10252, 2019

    Kangkang Wang, Rajiv Mathews, Chloé Kiddon, Hubert Eichner, Françoise Beaufays, and Daniel Ramage. Federated evaluation of on-device personalization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.10252, 2019

    1910 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Graph augmentation guided federated knowledge distillation for multisite functional mri analysis

    Qianqian Wang, Junhao Zhang, Long Li, Lishan Qiao, Pew-Thian Yap, and Mingxia Liu. Graph augmentation guided federated knowledge distillation for multisite functional mri analysis. Pattern Recognition, 164:111559, 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    Tensor decomposition based personalized federated learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.12959, 2022

    Qing Wang, Jing Jin, Xiaofeng Liu, Huixuan Zong, Yunfeng Shao, and Yinchuan Li. Tensor decomposition based personalized federated learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.12959, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Comprehensive evaluation of harmonization on functional brain imaging for multisite data-fusion.NeuroImage, 274:120089, 2023

    Yu-Wei Wang, Xiao Chen, and Chao-Gan Yan. Comprehensive evaluation of harmonization on functional brain imaging for multisite data-fusion.NeuroImage, 274:120089, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Eeg resting-state functional connectivity: evidence for an imbalance of external/internal information integration in autism.Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 14(1):47, 2022

    Prany Wantzen, Patrice Clochon, Franck Doidy, Fabrice Wallois, Mahdi Mahmoudzadeh, Pierre Desaunay, Mille Christian, Jean-Marc Guilé, Fabian Guénolé, Francis Eustache, et al. Eeg resting-state functional connectivity: evidence for an imbalance of external/internal information ...

    2022

  32. [40]

    Ayumu Yamashita, Noriaki Yahata, Takashi Itahashi, Giuseppe Lisi, Takashi Yamada, Naho Ichikawa, Masahiro Takamura, Yujiro Yoshihara, Akira Kunimatsu, Naohiro Okada, et al. Har- monization of resting-state functional mri data across multiple imaging sites via the separation of...

    2019

  33. [41]

    Fedbrain: federated training of graph neu- ral networks for connectome-based brain imaging analysis

    Yi Yang, Han Xie, Hejie Cui, and Carl Yang. Fedbrain: federated training of graph neu- ral networks for connectome-based brain imaging analysis. InPACIFIC SYMPOSIUM ON BIOCOMPUTING 2024, pages 214–225. World Scientific, 2023

    2024

  34. [42]

    high-order

    Han Zhang, Xiaobo Chen, Yu Zhang, and Dinggang Shen. Test-retest reliability of “high-order” functional connectivity in young healthy adults.Frontiers in neuroscience, 11:439, 2017

    2017

  35. [43]

    Fedgmkd: An efficient prototype feder- ated learning framework through knowledge distillation and discrepancy-aware aggregation

    Jianqiao Zhang, Caifeng Shan, and Jungong Han. Fedgmkd: An efficient prototype feder- ated learning framework through knowledge distillation and discrepancy-aware aggregation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:118326–118356, 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Preserving specificity in federated graph learning for fmri-based neurological disorder identification.Neural Networks, 169:584–596, 2024

    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

    2024

  37. [45]

    Cyclic coupled tucker decomposition of large fmri datasets

    Chi Zhou, Qiu-Hua Lin, Yue Han, Jia-Yang Song, Xiao-Feng Gong, and Vince D Calhoun. Cyclic coupled tucker decomposition of large fmri datasets. InICASSP 2026-2026 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 8162–

    2026

  38. [46]

    Altered intra-and inter-network connectivity in autism spectrum disorder.Aging (Albany NY), 16(11):10004, 2024

    Rui Zhou, Chenhao Sun, Mingxiang Sun, Yudi Ruan, Weikai Li, and Xin Gao. Altered intra-and inter-network connectivity in autism spectrum disorder.Aging (Albany NY), 16(11):10004, 2024

    2024

  39. [47]

    Dynamic functional connectivity changes of resting-state brain network in attention- deficit/hyperactivity disorder.Behavioural Brain Research, 437:114121, 2023

    Zhihao Zhu, Hongwei Wang, Hui Bi, Jidong Lv, Xiaotong Zhang, Suhong Wang, and Ling Zou. Dynamic functional connectivity changes of resting-state brain network in attention- deficit/hyperactivity disorder.Behavioural Brain Research, 437:114121, 2023. 13 A Technical Appendices a...

    2023

Pith tools

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