Perhaps there is an issue related to data clean up or alignment of brain areas 
across subjects.  The Finn study does not appear to have followed the 
recommended approach to either.

Peace,

Matt.

From: 
<hcp-users-boun...@humanconnectome.org<mailto:hcp-users-boun...@humanconnectome.org>>
 on behalf of Benjamin Garzon 
<benjamin.gar...@ki.se<mailto:benjamin.gar...@ki.se>>
Date: Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 1:39 PM
To: "hcp-users@humanconnectome.org<mailto:hcp-users@humanconnectome.org>" 
<hcp-users@humanconnectome.org<mailto:hcp-users@humanconnectome.org>>
Subject: [HCP-Users] netmats prediction of fluid intelligence

Dear HCP experts,

I'm trying to reconcile the MegaTrawl prediction of fluid intelligence 
(PMAT24_A_CR)

https://db.humanconnectome.org/megatrawl/3T_HCP820_MSMAll_d200_ts2/megatrawl_1/sm203/index.html

(which shows r = 0.06 between predicted and measured scores)

with the Finn 2015 study

https://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v18/n11/full/nn.4135.html

claiming an r = 0.5 correlation between predicted and measured scores. In the 
article they used a subset of the HCP data (126 subjects), but the measure of 
fluid intelligence is the same one. What can explain the considerable 
difference? As far as I can see the article did not address confounding, but 
even in that case r = 0.21 for MegaTrawl, which is still far from 0.5. And this 
considering that the model used in the article is a much simpler one than the 
MegaTrawl elastic net regressor.

I've been trying to predict fluid intelligence in an independent sample with 
300 subjects and a netmats + confounds model does not perform better than a 
confounds-only model, more in agreement with the MegaTrawl results.

In the Smith 2015 paper

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v18/n11/full/nn.4125.html

the found mode of covariation with the netmats data correlates with fluid 
intelligence with r = 0.38.

Should I conclude from the Megatrawl analysis (as well as from my own) that the 
single measure of fluid intelligence is not reliable enough to be predicted 
based on connectome data, or am I missing something from the Finn paper?

I would be happy to read people 's thoughts about this topic, in view of the 
disparate results in the literature.

Best regards,

Benjamín Garzón, PhD
Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society
Aging Research Center | 113 30 Stockholm | Gävlegatan 16
benjamin.gar...@ki.se<mailto:benjamin.gar...@ki.se> | 
www.ki-su-arc.se<https://email.ki.se/owa/redir.aspx?C=LDNa9T7Nak68Br6ZyIC_J4KUwCiWMdEIQwVElfLYlCPLbdpUruOe0XhySwY-dNAYT9JyRT4AtFo.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.ki-su-arc.se%2f>
______________________________________
Karolinska Institutet – a medical university



_______________________________________________
HCP-Users mailing list
HCP-Users@humanconnectome.org<mailto:HCP-Users@humanconnectome.org>
http://lists.humanconnectome.org/mailman/listinfo/hcp-users

_______________________________________________
HCP-Users mailing list
HCP-Users@humanconnectome.org
http://lists.humanconnectome.org/mailman/listinfo/hcp-users

Reply via email to