000907986 001__ 907986
000907986 005__ 20230815122841.0
000907986 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119275
000907986 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a1053-8119
000907986 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a1095-9572
000907986 0247_ $$2Handle$$a2128/31250
000907986 0247_ $$2altmetric$$aaltmetric:127867674
000907986 0247_ $$2pmid$$apmid:35513295
000907986 0247_ $$2WOS$$aWOS:000830858700007
000907986 037__ $$aFZJ-2022-02310
000907986 082__ $$a610
000907986 1001_ $$00000-0003-3672-357X$$aYeung, Andy Wai Kan$$b0
000907986 245__ $$aReporting details of neuroimaging studies on individual traits prediction: A literature survey
000907986 260__ $$aOrlando, Fla.$$bAcademic Press$$c2022
000907986 3367_ $$2DRIVER$$aarticle
000907986 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOutput Types/Journal article
000907986 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)16$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aJournal Article$$bjournal$$mjournal$$s1654175081_11179
000907986 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aARTICLE
000907986 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aJOURNAL_ARTICLE
000907986 3367_ $$00$$2EndNote$$aJournal Article
000907986 520__ $$aUsing machine-learning tools to predict individual phenotypes from neuroimaging data is one of the most promising and hence dynamic fields in systems neuroscience. Here, we perform a literature survey of the rapidly work on phenotype prediction in healthy subjects or general population to sketch out the current state and ongoing developments in terms of data, analysis methods and reporting. Excluding papers on age-prediction and clinical applications, which form a distinct literature, we identified a total 108 papers published since 2007. In these, memory, fluid intelligence and attention were most common phenotypes to be predicted, which resonates with the observation that roughly a quarter of the papers used data from the Human Connectome Project, even though another half recruited their own cohort. Sample size (in terms of training and external test sets) and prediction accuracy (from internal and external validation respectively) did not show significant temporal trends. Prediction accuracy was negatively correlated with sample size of the training set, but not the external test set. While known to be optimistic, leave-one-out cross-validation (LOO CV) was the prevalent strategy for model validation (n = 48). Meanwhile, 27 studies used external validation with external test set. Both numbers showed no significant temporal trends. The most popular learning algorithm was connectome-based predictive modeling introduced by the Yale team. Other common learning algorithms were linear regression, relevance vector regression (RVR), support vector regression (SVR), least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), and elastic net. Meanwhile, the amount of data from self-recruiting studies (but not studies using open, shared dataset) was positively correlated with internal validation prediction accuracy. At the same time, self-recruiting studies also reported a significantly higher internal validation prediction accuracy than those using open, shared datasets. Data type and participant age did not significantly influence prediction accuracy. Confound control also did not influence prediction accuracy after adjusted for other factors. To conclude, most of the current literature is probably quite optimistic with internal validation using LOO CV. More efforts should be made to encourage the use of external validation with external test sets to further improve generalizability of the models.Keywords: Individual trait; Neuroimaging; Prediction; Predictive modeling; Survey.
000907986 536__ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5252$$a5252 - Brain Dysfunction and Plasticity (POF4-525)$$cPOF4-525$$fPOF IV$$x0
000907986 536__ $$0G:(GEPRIS)432015680$$aDFG project 432015680 - Automatisierte Gehirnalterung-Vorhersage und deren Interpretation $$c432015680$$x1
000907986 588__ $$aDataset connected to CrossRef, Journals: juser.fz-juelich.de
000907986 7001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)177823$$aMore, Shammi$$b1$$ufzj
000907986 7001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)177058$$aWu, Jianxiao$$b2$$ufzj
000907986 7001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)131678$$aEickhoff, Simon$$b3$$eCorresponding author
000907986 773__ $$0PERI:(DE-600)1471418-8$$a10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119275$$gVol. 256, p. 119275 -$$p119275 -$$tNeuroImage$$v256$$x1053-8119$$y2022
000907986 8564_ $$uhttps://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/907986/files/1-s2.0-S1053811922003962-main.pdf$$yOpenAccess
000907986 909CO $$ooai:juser.fz-juelich.de:907986$$pdnbdelivery$$pdriver$$pVDB$$popen_access$$popenaire
000907986 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)5008462-8$$6P:(DE-Juel1)177823$$aForschungszentrum Jülich$$b1$$kFZJ
000907986 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)5008462-8$$6P:(DE-Juel1)177058$$aForschungszentrum Jülich$$b2$$kFZJ
000907986 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)5008462-8$$6P:(DE-Juel1)131678$$aForschungszentrum Jülich$$b3$$kFZJ
000907986 9131_ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF4-525$$1G:(DE-HGF)POF4-520$$2G:(DE-HGF)POF4-500$$3G:(DE-HGF)POF4$$4G:(DE-HGF)POF$$9G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5252$$aDE-HGF$$bKey Technologies$$lNatural, Artificial and Cognitive Information Processing$$vDecoding Brain Organization and Dysfunction$$x0
000907986 9141_ $$y2022
000907986 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0160$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bEssential Science Indicators$$d2021-01-29
000907986 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1190$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bBiological Abstracts$$d2021-01-29
000907986 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0113$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index Expanded$$d2021-01-29
000907986 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0700$$2StatID$$aFees$$d2021-01-29
000907986 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0510$$2StatID$$aOpenAccess
000907986 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0561$$2StatID$$aArticle Processing Charges$$d2021-01-29
000907986 915__ $$0LIC:(DE-HGF)CCBY4$$2HGFVOC$$aCreative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0
000907986 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0420$$2StatID$$aNationallizenz$$d2022-11-12$$wger
000907986 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0100$$2StatID$$aJCR$$bNEUROIMAGE : 2021$$d2022-11-12
000907986 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0200$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bSCOPUS$$d2022-11-12
000907986 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0300$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bMedline$$d2022-11-12
000907986 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0501$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bDOAJ Seal$$d2022-09-27T20:29:23Z
000907986 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0500$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bDOAJ$$d2022-09-27T20:29:23Z
000907986 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0030$$2StatID$$aPeer Review$$bDOAJ : Blind peer review$$d2022-09-27T20:29:23Z
000907986 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0600$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bEbsco Academic Search$$d2022-11-12
000907986 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0030$$2StatID$$aPeer Review$$bASC$$d2022-11-12
000907986 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0199$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bClarivate Analytics Master Journal List$$d2022-11-12
000907986 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0150$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bWeb of Science Core Collection$$d2022-11-12
000907986 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1050$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bBIOSIS Previews$$d2022-11-12
000907986 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1030$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bCurrent Contents - Life Sciences$$d2022-11-12
000907986 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)9905$$2StatID$$aIF >= 5$$bNEUROIMAGE : 2021$$d2022-11-12
000907986 920__ $$lyes
000907986 9201_ $$0I:(DE-Juel1)INM-7-20090406$$kINM-7$$lGehirn & Verhalten$$x0
000907986 980__ $$ajournal
000907986 980__ $$aVDB
000907986 980__ $$aUNRESTRICTED
000907986 980__ $$aI:(DE-Juel1)INM-7-20090406
000907986 9801_ $$aFullTexts