http://www.nitrc.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=8217 <table border="0" width="100%"><tr><td align="left"/><td align="right"><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&amp;cmd=Link&amp;LinkName=pubmed_pubmed&amp;from_uid=29375288">Related Articles</a></td></tr></table> <p><b>PAIR Comparison between Two Within-Group Conditions of Resting-State fMRI Improves Classification Accuracy.</b></p> <p>Front Neurosci. 2017;11:740</p> <p>Authors: Zhou Z, Wang JB, Zang YF, Pan G</p> <p>Abstract<br/> Classification approaches have been increasingly applied to differentiate patients and normal controls using resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging data (RS-fMRI). Although most previous classification studies have reported promising accuracy within individual datasets, achieving high levels of accuracy with multiple datasets remains challenging for two main reasons: high dimensionality, and high variability across subjects. We used two independent RS-fMRI datasets (n = 31, 46, respectively) both with eyes closed (EC) and eyes open (EO) conditions. For each dataset, we first reduced the number of features to a small number of brain regions with paired t-tests, using the amplitude of low frequency fluctuation (ALFF) as a metric. Second, we employed a new method for feature extraction, named the PAIR method, examining EC and EO as paired conditions rather than independent conditions. Specifically, for each dataset, we obtained EC minus EO (EC-EO) maps of ALFF from half of subjects (n = 15 for dataset-1, n = 23 for dataset-2) and obtained EO-EC maps from the other half (n = 16 for dataset-1, n = 23 for dataset-2). A support vector machine (SVM) method was used for classification of EC RS-fMRI mapping and EO mapping. The mean classification accuracy of the PAIR method was 91.40% for dataset-1, and 92.75% for dataset-2 in the conventional frequency band of 0.01-0.08 Hz. For cross-dataset validation, we applied the classifier from dataset-1 directly to dataset-2, and vice versa. The mean accuracy of cross-dataset validation was 94.93% for dataset-1 to dataset-2 and 90.32% for dataset-2 to dataset-1 in the 0.01-0.08 Hz range. For the UNPAIR method, classification accuracy was substantially lower (mean 69.89% for dataset-1 and 82.97% for dataset-2), and was much lower for cross-dataset validation (64.69% for dataset-1 to dataset-2 and 64.98% for dataset-2 to dataset-1) in the 0.01-0.08 Hz range. In conclusion, for within-group design studies (e.g., paired conditions or follow-up studies), we recommend the PAIR method for feature extraction. In addition, dimensionality reduction with strong prior knowledge of specific brain regions should also be considered for feature selection in neuroimaging studies.<br/> </p><p>PMID: 29375288 [PubMed]</p> en-us Copyright 2000-2026 NITRC OSI Thu, 30 Apr 2026 17:59:01 GMT http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss NITRC RSS generator