ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2025
Functional connectivity heterogeneity and consequences for clinical and cognitive prediction: Stage 2 registered report.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study: Ten years of statistical and methodological contributions.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2026Article
- Brain Age Acceleration on MRI Due to Poor Sleep: Associations, Mechanisms, and Clinical Implications.Brain sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Functional connectivity is frequently used to assess dynamic brain functioning and predict individual differences in behavioral outcomes, such as psychopathology. Inferences from functional connectivity analyses typically rely on group-averaged model statistics. However, heterogeneity between individuals may lead to group-level models that poorly reflect each individual. Poor individual-level precision may limit the ability to make individual-level predictions, which is necessary for key goals such as clinical translation. This registered report examined between-person heterogeneity in resting-state functional connectivity strength patterns by assessing similarity between group- and individual-level connectivity models in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study. Using intraclass correlation coefficients, we found that a group-averaged region-of-interest-based connectivity model was a poor reflection of every individual. In contrast, a group-averaged model of between- and within-network connectivity was a good representation of most individuals. We then examined how individual-level distinctness from the group moderated predictive performance of several clinical and neurocognitive scales. Hypotheses that group-to-individual dissimilarity would worsen behavioral prediction were not supported with primary clinical outcomes. The little psychopathology reported in this sample was a notable limitation. In contrast, lower similarity to the group worsened prediction of performance on the pattern comparison test, providing minor support for hypotheses. Overall, results suggest that region-of-interest-based functional connectivity networks are highly heterogeneous and group-based models are inappropriate for individual-level inferences, but that network-based connectivity is largely similar across individuals. Additionally, we provide minor evidence of the impacts of heterogeneity on prediction that future studies should build on.
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.