Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 438

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Non-Stationarity in the “Resting Brain’s” Modular Architecture

Open access
Jones, David T., Vemuri, Prashanthi, Murphy, Matthew C., Gunter, Jeffrey L., Senjem, Matthew L., Machulda, Mary M., Przybelski, Scott A., Gregg, Brian E., Kantarci, Kejal, Knopman, David S., Boeve, Bradley F., Petersen, Ronald C., Jack, Clifford R.·2012·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0039731
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Task-free functional magnetic resonance imaging (TF-fMRI) has great potential for advancing the understanding and treatment of neurologic illness. However, as with all measures of neural activity, variability is a hallmark of intrinsic connectivity networks (ICNs) identified by TF-fMRI. This variability has hampered efforts to define a robust metric of connectivity suitable as a biomarker for neurologic illness. We hypothesized that some of this variability rather than representing noise in the measurement process, is related to a fundamental feature of connectivity within ICNs, which is their non-stationary nature. To test this hypothesis, we used a large (n = 892) population-based sample of older subjects to construct a well characterized atlas of 68 functional regions, which were categorized based on independent component analysis network of origin, anatomical locations, and a functional meta-analysis. These regions were then used to construct dynamic graphical representations of brain connectivity within a sliding time window for each subject. This allowed us to demonstrate the non-stationary nature of the brain's modular organization and assign each region to a "meta-modular" group. Using this grouping, we then compared dwell time in strong sub-network configurations of the default mode network (DMN) between 28 subjects with Alzheimer's dementia and 56 cognitively normal elderly subjects matched 1:2 on age, gender, and education. We found that differences in connectivity we and others have previously observed in Alzheimer's disease can be explained by differences in dwell time in DMN sub-network configurations, rather than steady state connectivity magnitude. DMN dwell time in specific modular configurations may also underlie the TF-fMRI findings that have been described in mild cognitive impairment and cognitively normal subjects who are at risk for Alzheimer's dementia.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0039731

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 47 references

Cited by

See all 438

Metadata

Authors
Jones, D. T., Vemuri, P., Murphy, M. C., Gunter, J. L., Senjem, M. L., Machulda, M. M., Przybelski, S. A., Gregg, B. E., Kantarci, K., Knopman, D. S., Boeve, B. F., Petersen, R. C., & Jack, C. R.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2012-06-28
Volume
7
Issue
6
Pages
e39731
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0039731
OpenAlex
W2094510930
Cited by
438
References
47
FWCI
15.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Non-Stationarity in the “Resting Brain’s” Modular Architecture. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0039731
The paper
Jones, D. T., Vemuri, P., Murphy, M. C., Gunter, J. L., Senjem, M. L., Machulda, M. M., Przybelski, S. A., Gregg, B. E., Kantarci, K., Knopman, D. S., Boeve, B. F., Petersen, R. C., & Jack, C. R. (2012). Non-Stationarity in the “Resting Brain’s” Modular Architecture. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0039731

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.