Cited by 70Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsNeural dynamics and brain function

Multi-subject analyses with dynamic causal modeling

Open access
Kasess, Christian Herbert, Stephan, Klaas Enno, Weissenbacher, Andreas, Pezawas, Lukas, Moser, Ewald, Windischberger, Christian·2010·NeuroImage

Abstract

Currently, most studies that employ dynamic causal modeling (DCM) use random-effects (RFX) analysis to make group inferences, applying a second-level frequentist test to subjects' parameter estimates. In some instances, however, fixed-effects (FFX) analysis can be more appropriate. Such analyses can be implemented by combining the subjects' posterior densities according to Bayes' theorem either on a multivariate (Bayesian parameter averaging or BPA) or univariate basis (posterior variance weighted averaging or PVWA), or by applying DCM to time-series averaged across subjects beforehand (temporal averaging or TA). While all these FFX approaches have the advantage of allowing for Bayesian inferences on parameters a systematic comparison of their statistical properties has been lacking so far. Based on simulated data generated from a two-region network we examined the effects of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and population heterogeneity on group-level parameter estimates. Data sets were simulated assuming either a homogeneous large population (N=60) with constant connectivities across subjects or a heterogeneous population with varying parameters. TA showed advantages at lower SNR but is limited in its applicability. Because BPA and PVWA take into account posterior (co)variance structure, they can yield non-intuitive results when only considering posterior means. This problem is relevant for high SNR data, pronounced parameter interdependencies and when FFX assumptions are violated (i.e. inhomogeneous groups). It diminishes with decreasing SNR and is absent for models with independent parameters or when FFX assumptions are appropriate. Group results obtained with these FFX approaches should therefore be interpreted carefully by considering estimates of dependencies among model parameters.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.11.037

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • BPA has disadvantages: posterior covariances can make posterior estimates behave counterintuitively, even when they are mathematically sensible.

    “However, BPA also has some disadvantages (Kasess et al., 2010). One potential problem is that the posterior covariances can make the posterior estimates behave in a counterintuitive way, even when they are mathematically perfectly sensible.”

    From Ten simple rules for dynamic causal modeling (2010) · cites this paper as Kasess et al., 2010

  • Other fixed-effects methods do not suffer from the particular problem of posterior covariances making estimates counterintuitive, although they have other restrictions.

    “Other fixed-effects methods do not suffer from this particular problem, although they have other restrictions; for details see Kasess et al. (2010).”

    From Ten simple rules for dynamic causal modeling (2010) · cites this paper as Kasess et al. (2010)

  • For data with high signal-to-noise ratio, in the presence of pronounced posterior covariances, the Bayesian average can deviate substantially from the mean of the maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimates across subjects.

    “This can become particularly severe for data with a high signal-to-noise ratio where, in the presence of pronounced posterior covariances, the Bayesian average can deviate substantially from the mean of the maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimates across subjects.”

    From Ten simple rules for dynamic causal modeling (2010) · cites this paper as Kasess et al., 2010

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Lee PM Bayesian Statistics 1989 Oxford University Press New York

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kasess, C. H., Stephan, K. E., Weissenbacher, A., Pezawas, L., Moser, E., & Windischberger, C.
Affiliations
  • Medical University of Vienna (AT)
  • Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
Corresponding author
Windischberger, Christian
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-02
Volume
49
Issue
4
Pages
3065-3074
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1995008852
Cited by
70
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 8
FWCI
2.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (056750)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
dynamic causal modeling, time averaging, population heterogeneity, signal-to-noise ratio, parameter interdependence, neural network model
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain, Brain Mapping, Computer Simulation, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Models, Neurological, Nerve Net, Causality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review