↓ Skip to main content

Fully exploratory network independent component analysis of the 1000 functional connectomes database

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
pinterest
1 Pinner

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Fully exploratory network independent component analysis of the 1000 functional connectomes database
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00301
Pubmed ID
Authors

Klaudius Kalcher, Wolfgang Huf, Roland N. Boubela, Peter Filzmoser, Lukas Pezawas, Bharat Biswal, Siegfried Kasper, Ewald Moser, Christian Windischberger

Abstract

The 1000 Functional Connectomes Project is a collection of resting-state fMRI datasets from more than 1000 subjects acquired in more than 30 independent studies from around the globe. This large, heterogeneous sample of resting-state data offers the unique opportunity to study the consistencies of resting-state networks at both subject and study level. In extension to the seminal paper by Biswal et al. (2010), where a repeated temporal concatenation group independent component analysis (ICA) approach on reduced subsets (using 20 as a pre-specified number of components) was used due to computational resource limitations, we herein apply Fully Exploratory Network ICA (FENICA) to 1000 single-subject independent component analyses. This, along with the possibility of using datasets of different lengths without truncation, enabled us to benefit from the full dataset available, thereby obtaining 16 networks consistent over the whole group of 1000 subjects. Furthermore, we demonstrated that the most consistent among these networks at both subject and study level matched networks most often reported in the literature, and found additional components emerging in prefrontal and parietal areas. Finally, we identified the influence of scan duration on the number of components as a source of heterogeneity between studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 4%
Germany 1 1%
Austria 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 74 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 20%
Student > Master 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 10 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 20 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 14%
Engineering 9 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 10%
Psychology 8 10%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 11 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 November 2012.
All research outputs
#18,320,524
of 22,685,926 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#6,044
of 7,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,993
of 244,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#251
of 294 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,685,926 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,119 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 244,115 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 294 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.