The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Heritability estimates on resting state fMRI data using ENIGMA analysis pipeline
Open accessAbstract
Big data initiatives such as the Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis consortium (ENIGMA), combine data collected by independent studies worldwide to achieve more generalizable estimates of effect sizes and more reliable and reproducible outcomes. Such efforts require harmonized image analyses protocols to extract phenotypes consistently. This harmonization is particularly challenging for resting state fMRI due to the wide variability of acquisition protocols and scanner platforms; this leads to site-to-site variance in quality, resolution and temporal signal-to-noise ratio (tSNR). An effective harmonization should provide optimal measures for data of different qualities. We developed a multi-site rsfMRI analysis pipeline to allow research groups around the world to process rsfMRI scans in a harmonized way, to extract consistent and quantitative measurements of connectivity and to perform coordinated statistical tests. We used the single-modality ENIGMA rsfMRI preprocessing pipeline based on modelfree Marchenko-Pastur PCA based denoising to verify and replicate resting state network heritability estimates. We analyzed two independent cohorts, GOBS (Genetics of Brain Structure) and HCP (the Human Connectome Project), which collected data using conventional and connectomics oriented fMRI protocols, respectively. We used seed-based connectivity and dual-regression approaches to show that the rsfMRI signal is consistently heritable across twenty major functional network measures. Heritability values of 20-40% were observed across both cohorts.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
Given the heritability of brain structure and function, family structure should be specifically accounted for in analysis pipelines.
“Given the heritability of brain structure and function32–34, family structure should be specifically accounted for in analysis pipelines, such as in permutation tests65.”
From Data leakage inflates prediction performance in connectome-based machine learning models (2024) · cites this paper as [33]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- [2]2. M.D. Fox, and M.E. Raichle, Nat. Rev. Neurosci. , 8 (9): 700 (2007).
- [7]7. B.M. Adhikari, N. Jahanshad, D.K. Shukla, et al., Brain Imaging Behav , (under review), (2017).
- [10]10. D.C. Glahn, A.M. Winkler, P. Kochunov, et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A , 107 (3): 1223 (2010).
- [12]12. E.L. Edens, A.L. Glowinski, M.L. Pergadia, et al., J. Addict. Med. , 4 (1): 55 (2010).
- [13]13. C.E. Sartor, V.V. McCutcheon, N.E. Pommer, et al., Psychol Med , 41 (7): 1497 (2011).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Data leakage inflates prediction performance in connectome-based machine learning models
Rosenblatt, M., Tejavibulya, L., Jiang, R., Noble, S., & Scheinost, D. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-46150-w · Cited by 236
Metadata
- Authors
- Adhikari, B. M., Jahanshad, N., Shukla, D., Glahn, D. C., Blangero, J., Reynolds, R. C., Cox, R. W., Fieremans, E., Veraart, J., Novikov, D. S., Nichols, T. E., Hong, L. E., Thompson, P. M., & Kochunov, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
- University of Southern California (US)
- Yale University (US)
- The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley (US)
- National Institute of Mental Health (US)
- New York University (US)
- University of Warwick (GB)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Biocomputing 2018
- Publisher
- WORLD SCIENTIFIC
- Published
- 2017-11-17
- Volume
- 23
- Pages
- 307-318
- PMC
- PMC5728672
- OpenAlex
- W2760367745
- Cited by
- 47
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 8.05
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc
- Locations
- Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing (PSB) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- ScholarWorks @ UTRGV (The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Wellcome Trust (100309/A/12/Z)
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute on Aging (R01AG040060, P30AG008051)
- National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH112180, U01MH108148, R01MH085646)
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA027680)
- National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (U54EB020403, R01EB015611)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
- Keywords
- resting-state fMRI, heritability, ENIGMA consortium, functional brain networks, seed-based functional connectivity, dual regression, Human Connectome Project, connectomics, inter-site variability
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Brain, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Regression Analysis, Software, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Computational Biology, Principal Component Analysis, Signal-To-Noise Ratio, Functional Neuroimaging, 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