4.0 Article

Distance canonical correlation analysis with application to an imaging-genetic study

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL IMAGING
卷 6, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

SPIE-SOC PHOTO-OPTICAL INSTRUMENTATION ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.6.2.026501

关键词

distance correlation; nonlinear; multimodal; functional magnetic resonance imaging; imaging genetics; brain networks

资金

  1. NIH [P30 GM122734, R01 GM109068, R01 MH104680, R01 MH107354, P20 GM103472, R01 REB020407, R01 EB006841]
  2. NSF [1539067]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Distance correlation is a measure that can detect both linear and nonlinear associations. However, applying distance correlation to imaging genetic studies often needs multiple testing correction due to the large number of multiple inferences. As a result, the sensitivity of its detection may be low. We propose a new model, distance canonical correlation analysis (DCCA), which overcomes this problem by searching a combination of features with the highest distance correlation. This is achieved by constructing a distance kernel function followed by solving a subsequent optimization problem. The ability to detect both linear and nonlinear associations makes DCCA suitable for analyzing complex multimodal and imaging-genetic associations. When applied to a brain imaging-genetic study from the Philadelphia Neurodevelopmental Cohort (PNC), DCCA detected several mental disorder-related gene pathways and brain networks. Experiments on brain connectivity found that the default mode network had strong nonlinear connections with other brain networks. When applied to the study of age effects, DCCA revealed that the connections of brain networks were relatively weak in younger groups but became stronger at older age stages. It indicates that adolescence is a vital stage for brain development. DCCA thus reveals a number of interesting findings and demonstrates a powerful new approach for analyzing multimodal brain imaging data. (C) 2019 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE)

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

4.0
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