首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>NeuroImage : Clinical >Group ICA for identifying biomarkers in schizophrenia: ‘Adaptive’ networks via spatially constrained ICA show more sensitivity to group differences than spatio-temporal regression
【2h】

Group ICA for identifying biomarkers in schizophrenia: ‘Adaptive’ networks via spatially constrained ICA show more sensitivity to group differences than spatio-temporal regression

机译:ICA组用于识别精神分裂症的生物标志物:通过空间受限ICA的自适应网络比时空回归显示出对组差异的敏感性更高

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Brain functional networks identified from fMRI data can provide potential biomarkers for brain disorders. Group independent component analysis (GICA) is popular for extracting brain functional networks from multiple subjects. In GICA, different strategies exist for reconstructing subject-specific networks from the group-level networks. However, it is unknown whether these strategies have different sensitivities to group differences and abilities in distinguishing patients. Among GICA, spatio-temporal regression (STR) and spatially constrained ICA approaches such as group information guided ICA (GIG-ICA) can be used to propagate components (indicating networks) to a new subject that is not included in the original subjects. In this study, based on the same a priori network maps, we reconstructed subject-specific networks using these two methods separately from resting-state fMRI data of 151 schizophrenia patients (SZs) and 163 healthy controls (HCs). We investigated group differences in the estimated functional networks and the functional network connectivity (FNC) obtained by each method. The networks were also used as features in a cross-validated support vector machine (SVM) for classifying SZs and HCs. We selected features using different strategies to provide a comprehensive comparison between the two methods. GIG-ICA generally showed greater sensitivity in statistical analysis and better classification performance (accuracy 76.45 ± 8.9%, sensitivity 0.74 ± 0.11, specificity 0.79 ± 0.11) than STR (accuracy 67.45 ± 8.13%, sensitivity 0.65 ± 0.11, specificity 0.71 ± 0.11). Importantly, results were also consistent when applied to an independent dataset including 82 HCs and 82 SZs. Our work suggests that the functional networks estimated by GIG-ICA are more sensitive to group differences, and GIG-ICA is promising for identifying image-derived biomarkers of brain disease.
机译:从功能磁共振成像数据中识别出的脑功能网络可以为脑部疾病提供潜在的生物标记。组独立成分分析(GICA)在从多个对象中提取大脑功能网络方面很受欢迎。在GICA中,存在从组级网络重建特定主题网络的不同策略。然而,尚不清楚这些策略是否对群体差异和区分患者的能力具有不同的敏感性。在GICA中,时空回归(STR)和受空间限制的ICA方法(例如组信息指导ICA(GIG-ICA))可用于将组成部分(指示网络)传播到原始主题中未包括的新主题。在这项研究中,基于相同的先验网络图,我们使用这两种方法分别从151位精神分裂症患者(SZs)和163位健康对照(HCs)的静息状态fMRI数据中重建了特定于受试者的网络。我们调查了估计的功能网络和通过每种方法获得的功能网络连接(FNC)的组差异。该网络还用作交叉验证的支持向量机(SVM)的功能,用于对SZ和HC进行分类。我们使用不同的策略选择了功能,以提供两种方法之间的全面比较。与STR(准确度67.45±±8.13%,敏感性0.65±0.11,特异性0.71±0.11)相比,GIG-ICA在统计分析中通常表现出更高的敏感性和更好的分类性能(准确度76.45±±8.9%,敏感度0.74±0.11,特异性0.79±0.11)。 。重要的是,当将结果应用于包含82个HC和82个SZ的独立数据集时,结果也是一致的。我们的工作表明,由GIG-ICA估计的功能网络对群体差异更为敏感,而GIG-ICA有望用于识别图像衍生的脑部疾病生物标志物。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号