Cited by 132Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications

Bayesian networks for fMRI: A primer

Mumford, Jeanette A., Ramsey, Joseph D.·2014·NeuroImage

Abstract

Bayesian network analysis is an attractive approach for studying the functional integration of brain networks, as it includes both the locations of connections between regions of the brain (functional connectivity) and more importantly the direction of the causal relationship between the regions (directed functional connectivity). Further, these approaches are more attractive than other functional connectivity analyses in that they can often operate on larger sets of nodes and run searches over a wide range of candidate networks. An important study by Smith et al. (2011) illustrated that many Bayesian network approaches did not perform well in identifying the directionality of connections in simulated single-subject data. Since then, new Bayesian network approaches have been developed that have overcome the failures in the Smith work. Additionally, an important discovery was made that shows a preprocessing step used in the Smith data puts some of the Bayesian network methods at a disadvantage. This work provides a review of Bayesian network analyses, focusing on the methods used in the Smith work as well as methods developed since 2011 that have improved estimation performance. Importantly, only approaches that have been specifically designed for fMRI data perform well, as they have been tailored to meet the challenges of fMRI data. Although this work does not suggest a single best model, it describes the class of models that perform best and highlights the features of these models that allow them to perform well on fMRI data. Specifically, methods that rely on non-Gaussianity to direct causal relationships in the network perform well.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.10.020

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mumford, J. A., & Ramsey, J. D.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Corresponding author
Mumford, Jeanette A.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-02
Volume
86
Pages
573-582
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2004026511
Cited by
132
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6
FWCI
0.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
Bayesian networks, directed functional connectivity, functional MRI, causal inference, brain network integration, network structure estimation, non-Gaussianity
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Bayes Theorem, Brain, Computer Simulation, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Models, Neurological, Nerve Net, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Statistical, Connectome

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