Cited by 136Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesAutism Spectrum Disorder Research

Non-negative matrix factorization of multimodal MRI, fMRI and phenotypic data reveals differential changes in default mode subnetworks in ADHD

Open access
Anderson, Ariana, Douglas, Pamela K., Kerr, Wesley T., Haynes, Virginia S., Yuille, Alan L., Xie, Jianwen, Wu, Ying Nian, Brown, Jesse A. +1 more·2014·NeuroImage

Abstract

In the multimodal neuroimaging framework, data on a single subject are collected from inherently different sources such as functional MRI, structural MRI, behavioral and/or phenotypic information. The information each source provides is not independent; a subset of features from each modality maps to one or more common latent dimensions, which can be interpreted using generative models. These latent dimensions, or "topics," provide a sparse summary of the generative process behind the features for each individual. Topic modeling, an unsupervised generative model, has been used to map seemingly disparate features to a common domain. We use Non-Negative Matrix Factorization (NMF) to infer the latent structure of multimodal ADHD data containing fMRI, MRI, phenotypic and behavioral measurements. We compare four different NMF algorithms and find that the sparsest decomposition is also the most differentiating between ADHD and healthy patients. We identify dimensions that map to interpretable, recognizable dimensions such as motion, default mode network activity, and other such features of the input data. For example, structural and functional graph theory features related to default mode subnetworks clustered with the ADHD-Inattentive diagnosis. Structural measurements of the default mode network (DMN) regions such as the posterior cingulate, precuneus, and parahippocampal regions were all related to the ADHD-Inattentive diagnosis. Ventral DMN subnetworks may have more functional connections in ADHD-I, while dorsal DMN may have less. ADHD topics are dependent upon diagnostic site, suggesting diagnostic differences across geographic locations. We assess our findings in light of the ADHD-200 classification competition, and contrast our unsupervised, nominated topics with previously published supervised learning methods. Finally, we demonstrate the validity of these latent variables as biomarkers by using them for classification of ADHD in 730 patients. Cumulatively, this manuscript addresses how multimodal data in ADHD can be interpreted by latent dimensions.

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.2013.12.015

Cites

73 of 73 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?

  • Nearly all early fusion papers performed numericalization of image features, converting them to structured data prior to processing, while two performed matrix factorization.

    “Nearly all these papers performed numericalization of image features in essence converting them to structured data prior to processing, however, two performed matrix factorization34,36.”
  • Of those that have, classifier performance tends to be poorer overall than for studies utilizing structural or functional data alone.

    “Of those that have, classifier performance tends to be poorer overall than for studies utilizing structural or functional data alone.50, 51, 52, 53, 59”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Anderson, A., Douglas, P. K., Kerr, W. T., Haynes, V. S., Yuille, A. L., Xie, J., Wu, Y. N., Brown, J. A., & Cohen, M. S.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Eli Lilly (United States) (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • California NanoSystems Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Anderson, Ariana
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-11
Volume
102
Pages
207-219
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2155830939
Cited by
136
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 7
FWCI
1.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Janssen Research & Development
  • Burroughs Wellcome Fund
  • NSF (DMS-1007889)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
Keywords
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, default mode network, non-negative matrix factorization, topic modeling, multimodal neuroimaging, graph theory, posterior cingulate cortex, precuneus, parahippocampal cortex, ADHD classification, ADHD-200
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Algorithms, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Phenotype, Young Adult, Neuroimaging, Multimodal Imaging

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