4.6 Article

Classification and Extraction of Resting State Networks Using Healthy and Epilepsy fMRI Data

期刊

FRONTIERS IN NEUROSCIENCE
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2016.00440

关键词

resting state fMRI; resting state networks; independent component analysis; machine learning; classification

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R41NS081926, RC1MH090912, K23NS086852, T32EB011434]
  2. Foundation of ASNR's Comparative Effectiveness Research Award
  3. National Institutes of Health (ICTR KL2) [UL1TR000427]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Functional magnetic resonance imaging studies have significantly expanded the field's understanding of functional brain activity of healthy and patient populations. Resting state (rs-) fMRI, which does not require subjects to perform a task, eliminating confounds of task difficulty, allows examination of neural activity and offers valuable functional mapping information. The purpose of this work was to develop an automatic resting state network (RSN) labeling method which offers value in clinical workflow during rs-fMRI mapping by organizing and quickly labeling spatial maps into functional networks. Here independent component analysis (ICA) and machine learning were applied to rs-fMRI data with the goal of developing a method for the clinically oriented task of extracting and classifying spatial maps into auditory, visual, default-mode, sensorimotor, and executive control RSNs from 23 epilepsy patients (and for general comparison, separately for 30 healthy subjects). ICA revealed distinct and consistent functional network components across patients and healthy subjects. Network classification was successful, achieving 88% accuracy for epilepsy patients with a naive Bayes algorithm (and 90% accuracy for healthy subjects with a perceptron). The method's utility to researchers and clinicians is the provided RSN spatial maps and their functional labeling which offer complementary functional information to clinicians' expert interpretation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据