↓ Skip to main content

Missing data estimation in fMRI dynamic causal modeling

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Missing data estimation in fMRI dynamic causal modeling
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, July 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2014.00191
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shaza B. Zaghlool, Christopher L. Wyatt

Abstract

Dynamic Causal Modeling (DCM) can be used to quantify cognitive function in individuals as effective connectivity. However, ambiguity among subjects in the number and location of discernible active regions prevents all candidate models from being compared in all subjects, precluding the use of DCM as an individual cognitive phenotyping tool. This paper proposes a solution to this problem by treating missing regions in the first-level analysis as missing data, and performing estimation of the time course associated with any missing region using one of four candidate methods: zero-filling, average-filling, noise-filling using a fixed stochastic process, or one estimated using expectation-maximization. The effect of this estimation scheme was analyzed by treating it as a preprocessing step to DCM and observing the resulting effects on model evidence. Simulation studies show that estimation using expectation-maximization yields the highest classification accuracy using a simple loss function and highest model evidence, relative to other methods. This result held for various dataset sizes and varying numbers of model choice. In real data, application to Go/No-Go and Simon tasks allowed computation of signals from the missing nodes and the consequent computation of model evidence in all subjects compared to 62 and 48 percent respectively if no preprocessing was performed. These results demonstrate the face validity of the preprocessing scheme and open the possibility of using single-subject DCM as an individual cognitive phenotyping tool.

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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Chile 1 3%
Australia 1 3%
Unknown 26 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 24%
Researcher 7 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 21%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 4 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 28%
Neuroscience 8 28%
Engineering 3 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 5 17%
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 04 July 2014.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#9,456
of 11,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,623
of 242,213 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#110
of 131 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 242,213 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 131 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.