ArticleResearch square2026
Cognitive-Behavioral Predictors of Individual Variability of Functional Connectivity in Healthy Young Adults.
Article in Research square, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
While stable patterns of fMRI task-evoked brain activity and functional connectivity (FC) exist at the population level, a growing body of research emphasizes that variability exists across individuals. These differences define the critical idiosyncrasies in cognition and behavior across individuals that make individuals unique. Resting-state fMRI data (60 minutes) were examined from 1012 participants from the HCP dataset of healthy adults between the ages of 22 and 37. Functional connectivity was estimated between 360 regions, and variability was defined by each individual's mean correlational distance (MCD) to all other participants. High MCD indicated a more 'idiosyncratic' connectivity pattern deviating from the group pattern. Hierarchical regression was used to determine predictors of variability in FC. The base model (demographics, sleep, sex, brain volume) explained 9.22% of the variance in heterogeneity in functional connectivity. Increased variance was explained by cognition, squared cognition, and NEO personality scores, while emotional scores and fitness explained no additional variance. The final model explained 11.9% of the variance in MCD. Low MCD (i.e., being closer to average) was associated with higher BMI, greater crystalized cognitive scores, more positive emotional valence, and NEO Agreeableness. Greater variability was associated with age, brain volume (potentially a sex difference), and NEO Extroversion. The model underestimated variability in the highest MCD participants, suggesting unexplained factors in highly variable individuals. Differences were observed between males and females, and monozygotic twins showed similar variability, suggesting a genetic component. These results suggest benefits for a connectivity pattern being more similar to the group average.
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.