ArticleNetwork neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2025
Predicting response speed and age from task-evoked effective connectivity.
Article in Network neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent neuroimaging studies demonstrated that task-evoked functional connectivity (FC) may better predict individual traits than resting-state FC. However, the prediction properties of task-evoked effective connectivity (EC) remain unexplored. We investigated this by predicting individual reaction time (RT) performance in the stimulus-response compatibility task and age, using intrinsic EC (I-EC; calculated at baseline) and task-modulated EC (M-EC; induced by experimental conditions) with dynamic causal modeling (DCM) across various data processing conditions, including different general linear model (GLM) designs, Bayesian model reduction, and different cross-validation schemes and prediction models. We report evident differences in predicting RT and age between I-EC and M-EC, as well as between event-related and block-based GLM and DCM designs. M-EC outperformed both I-EC and task-evoked FC in RT prediction, while all types of connectivity performed similarly for age. Event-related GLM and DCM designs performed better than block-based designs. Our findings suggest that task-evoked I-EC and M-EC may capture different phenotypic attributes, with performance influenced by data processing and modeling choices, particularly the GLM-DCM design. This evaluation of methods for behavior prediction from brain EC may contribute to a meta-scientific understanding of how data processing and modeling frameworks influence neuroimaging-based predictions, offering insights for improving their robustness and efficacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.