Beyond Correlation: A Data-Driven Framework for Mapping Brain-Behavior Associations in Neuroscience Research and Drug Development

Abstract

This article synthesizes current methodologies and challenges in data-driven brain-behavior association studies, a field pivotal for advancing neurobiological understanding and therapeutic development. We explore the foundational shift from expert-driven to data-driven ontologies that redefine functional brain domains based on large-scale neuroimaging data. The review covers innovative methodological approaches, including precision designs and multivariate machine learning, that enhance predictive power. We critically address pervasive obstacles such as measurement noise, head motion artifacts, and reliability issues, offering practical optimization strategies. Finally, we evaluate the validation of these approaches against traditional frameworks and discuss their profound implications for creating biologically grounded diagnostics and repurposing drugs for neurological and psychiatric disorders, providing a comprehensive resource for researchers and drug development professionals.

Redefining Brain-Behavior Maps: From Expert-Guided Ontologies to Data-Driven Neurobiological Domains

Brain-wide association studies (BWAS) represent a powerful approach in neuroscience, defined as "studies of the associations between common inter-individual variability in human brain structure/function and cognition or psychiatric symptomatology" [1]. These studies hold transformative potential for predicting psychiatric disease burden and understanding the cognitive abilities underlying human intelligence [1]. However, the field faces a significant challenge: widespread replication failures of reported brain-behavior associations [1] [2].

This replicability crisis stems primarily from two interconnected limitations: (1) statistically underpowered studies relying on small sample sizes that are vulnerable to sampling variability, and (2) noisy measurements of both brain function and behavior that attenuate observable effects [1] [2]. As neuroimaging research increasingly aims to inform drug development and clinical practice, addressing these limitations becomes paramount for building a reliable foundation upon which to base scientific conclusions and therapeutic innovations.

Quantitative Landscape: Effect Sizes and Sample Size Requirements

The Magnitude of BWAS Effects

Empirical evidence from large-scale studies reveals that most brain-behavior associations are considerably smaller than previously assumed. When analyzed in adequately powered samples, the median univariate effect size (|r|) in BWAS is approximately 0.01, with the top 1% of associations reaching only |r| > 0.06 [1]. The largest replicated correlation observed in rigorous analyses is |r| = 0.16 [1]. These modest effect sizes have profound implications for statistical power and study design.

Table 1: Typical BWAS Effect Sizes Across Modalities and Phenotypes

Analysis Type	Typical Effect Size (	r	)	Notes
Median univariate association	0.01	Across all brain-behavior pairs [1]
Top 1% of associations	0.06-0.16	Largest replicated effects [1]
Multivariate prediction of age	≈0.58	Among strongest predictable traits [2]
Multivariate prediction of vocabulary	≈0.39	Crystallized intelligence shows better predictability [2]
Multivariate prediction of inhibitory control	<0.10	Among poorest predictable cognitive measures [2]

Sample Size Requirements for Reliable Detection

The consequences of small effect sizes become evident when examining the relationship between sample size and reproducibility. At a sample size of n=25—representative of the median neuroimaging study—the 99% confidence interval for univariate associations spans r ± 0.52, indicating that BWAS effects can be strongly inflated by chance [1]. This sampling variability means two independent studies with n=25 can reach opposite conclusions about the same brain-behavior association solely due to chance [1].

Table 2: Sample Size Influence on BWAS Reproducibility

Sample Size	Impact on BWAS Reproducibility
n = 25 (historical median)	99% CI = r ± 0.52; extreme effect inflation; frequent replication failures [1]
n = 1,964	Top 1% effects still inflated by r = 0.07 (78%) on average [1]
n = 3,000+	Replication rates begin to substantially improve [1]
n = 50,000	Required for robust detection of typical BWAS effects [1]

The transition to larger samples mirrors the evolution of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) in genetics, which steadily increased sample sizes from below 100 to over 1,000,000 participants to reliably detect small effects [1]. Neuroimaging consortia including the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study (n=11,874), Human Connectome Project (HCP, n=1,200), and UK Biobank (n=35,735) have enabled more accurate estimation of BWAS effect sizes [1].

Methodological Protocols: From Data Acquisition to Analysis

Large-Sample Consortium Studies

Experimental Protocol: The ABCD Study serves as a representative protocol for large-scale BWAS [1]. The study collects structural MRI (cortical thickness) and functional MRI (resting-state functional connectivity - RSFC) across multiple imaging sites (21 sites) using standardized acquisition parameters. Behavioral measures include 41 measures indexing demographics, cognition, and mental health (e.g., NIH Toolbox for cognitive ability, Child Behavior Checklist for psychopathology) [1].

Data Processing: For RSFC data, strict denoising strategies are applied, including frame censoring at filtered framewise displacement <0.08 mm, yielding a rigorously denoised sample of n=3,928 with >8 minutes of RSFC data post-censoring [1]. Analyses are conducted across multiple levels of anatomical resolution: structural (cortical vertices, regions of interest, networks) and functional (edges, principal components, networks) [1].

Association Testing: Univariate analyses correlate each brain feature with each behavioral phenotype. Multivariate approaches include machine learning methods such as support vector regression and canonical correlation analysis [1]. Validation involves out-of-sample replication and cross-dataset verification using HCP and UK Biobank datasets [1].

Precision Measurement Approaches

Experimental Protocol: Precision studies address measurement reliability through intensive data collection per participant [2]. For inhibitory control measurement, one protocol collects more than 5,000 trials for each participant across four different inhibitory control paradigms distributed over 36 testing days [2].

fMRI Data Requirements: For reliable individual-level functional connectivity estimates, more than 20-30 minutes of fMRI data is required [2]. For cognitive tasks, extending testing duration from typical 5-minute assessments to 60-minute sessions significantly improves measurement precision and predictive power [2].

Individual-Specific Modeling: Rather than assuming group-level correspondences, precision approaches model individual-specific patterns of brain organization [2]. Techniques include 'hyper-aligning' fine-grained functional connectivity features and deriving functional connectivity from individual-specific parcellations rather than group-level templates [2].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Methodological Solutions for BWAS

Tool/Resource	Function/Role	Specifications/Requirements
Large-Scale Datasets	Provide adequate statistical power for detecting small effects	ABCD (n=11,874), UK Biobank (n=35,735), HCP (n=1,200) [1]
Multivariate Machine Learning	Combine information from multiple brain features to improve prediction	Support vector regression, canonical correlation analysis [1] [2]
Individual-Specific Parcellations	Account for individual variability in brain organization	Derived from each participant's functional connectivity rather than group templates [2]
Hyperalignment Techniques	Align fine-grained functional connectivity patterns across individuals	Improves prediction of general intelligence compared to region-based approaches [2]
Extended Cognitive Testing	Improve reliability of behavioral phenotype measurement	60+ minutes for cognitive tasks (vs. typical 5-minute assessments) [2]
Longitudinal Sampling Schemes	Improve effect sizes through optimized study design	Explicit modeling of between-subject and within-subject effects [3]

Integrated Solutions: Pathways to Improved BWAS

Hybrid Approaches: Combining Large Samples with Precision Measurements

The most promising path forward involves integrating the strengths of both large-scale consortia and precision approaches [2]. Large samples provide the statistical power to detect small effects, while precision measurements ensure those effects are accurately characterized through reliable assessment of both brain and behavioral measures [2]. This hybrid model acknowledges that both participant numbers and data quality per participant are crucial for advancing BWAS reproducibility [2].

Study Design Optimization

Recent evidence indicates that optimizing study design through sampling schemes can significantly improve standardized effect sizes and replicability [3]. Longitudinal studies with larger variability of covariates show enhanced effect sizes [3]. Importantly, commonly used longitudinal models that assume equal between-subject and within-subject changes can inadvertently reduce standardized effect sizes and replicability [3]. Explicitly modeling these effects separately enables optimization of standardized effect sizes for each component [3].

Analytical Advancements

Multivariate methods generally yield more robust BWAS effects compared to univariate approaches [1]. Functional MRI measures typically show better predictive performance than structural measures, and task-based fMRI generally outperforms resting-state functional connectivity [1] [2]. Cognitive tests are better predicted than mental health questionnaires [1] [2]. Analytical techniques that remove common neural signals across individuals or global artifacts across the brain can further enhance individual-specific mappings [2].

The replicability crisis in BWAS stems from fundamental methodological challenges: insufficient sample sizes to detect small effects and inadequate measurement precision to reliably characterize individual differences. Solving this crisis requires a multifaceted approach combining large-scale consortium data, precision measurement techniques, optimized study designs, and advanced analytical methods. As BWAS methodologies mature, they offer the promise of robust brain-behavior associations that can reliably inform basic neuroscience and drug development pipelines. The path forward requires acknowledging the complexity of brain-behavior relationships and adopting methodological rigor commensurate with this complexity.

The emergence of large-scale, consortium-driven neuroimaging datasets has fundamentally reshaped our understanding of effect sizes in brain-behavior association studies (BWAS). Research leveraging the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study, Human Connectome Project (HCP), and UK Biobank (UKB) has demonstrated that previously reported associations from small-sample studies were often inflated due to methodological limitations. This whitepaper synthesizes evidence that reproducible BWAS requires thousands of individuals, details the experimental protocols enabling these discoveries, and provides a research toolkit for conducting robust, data-driven brain-behavior research in the consortium era.

For decades, neuroimaging research relied on modest sample sizes, with a median of approximately 25 participants per study [1]. While adequate for detecting large effects in classical brain mapping studies, these sample sizes proved insufficient for characterizing subtle brain-behavior relationships underlying complex cognitive and mental health phenotypes. The resulting literature was plagued by replication failures, effect size inflation, and underpowered studies [1].

The paradigm shift began with the realization that population-based sciences aiming to characterize small effects—such as genomics—required massive sample sizes to achieve robustness [1]. Inspired by this approach, neuroimaging consortia launched ambitious data collection efforts, including the HCP (n ≈ 1,200), ABCD Study (n ≈ 11,875), and UK Biobank (n ≈ 35,735) [1] [4]. These datasets, with their unprecedented sample sizes and rich phenotypic characterization, have enabled researchers to precisely quantify BWAS effect sizes and establish new standards for methodological rigor.

Quantitative Landscape: True Effect Sizes Revealed by Large-Scale Datasets

Effect Size Distributions Across Modalities and Phenotypes

Large-scale analyses have revealed that most brain-behavior associations are substantially smaller than previously assumed. Using rigorously denoised ABCD data (n = 3,928), researchers found the median univariate effect size (|r|) across all brain-wide associations was merely 0.01 [1]. The top 1% of all possible brain-behavior associations reached only |r| > 0.06, with the largest replicable correlation at |r| = 0.16 [1].

Table 1: Univariate Brain-Wide Association Effect Sizes Across Large-Scale Datasets

Dataset	Sample Size	Age Range	Median	r		Top 1%	r		Largest Replicable	r
ABCD (rigorous denoising)	3,928	9-10 years	0.01	>0.06	0.16
ABCD (subsampled)	900	9-10 years	-	>0.11	-
HCP (subsampled)	900	22-35 years	-	>0.12	-
UK Biobank (subsampled)	900	40-69 years	-	>0.10	-

Effect sizes vary systematically by imaging modality, phenotypic domain, and analytical approach. Functional MRI measures generally show more robust associations than structural metrics, cognitive tests outperform mental health questionnaires, and multivariate methods surpass univariate approaches [1]. Sociodemographic covariate adjustment further reduces effect sizes, particularly for the strongest associations (top 1% Δr = -0.014) [1].

Sample Size Requirements for Reproducible BWAS

Sampling variability analyses demonstrate why small studies produce irreproducible results. At n = 25, the 99% confidence interval for univariate associations spans r ± 0.52, meaning two independent samples can reach opposite conclusions about the same brain-behavior association solely due to chance variation [1]. Effect size inflation remains substantial even at n = 1,964, with the top 1% largest BWAS effects still inflated by r = 0.07 (78%) on average [1].

Table 2: Sample Size Requirements for Reproducible Brain-Behavior Associations

Research Goal	Minimum Sample Size	Key Findings
Detect moderate effects (r > 0.3)	~25	Classical brain mapping with large effects
Estimate true effect sizes	>1,000	Prevents substantial inflation (>78%)
Reproducible BWAS	Thousands	Replication rates improve significantly
Population neuroscience	>10,000	ABCD, UK Biobank enable developmental and lifespan studies

Experimental Protocols and Methodological Standards

Standardized Data Acquisition Across Consortia

Each major consortium implements standardized imaging protocols across recruitment sites to ensure data comparability:

ABCD Study Protocol: The ABCD Study recruited 11,875 youth aged 9-10 years through a school-based stratified random sampling strategy across 21 sites to enhance demographic representativeness [4]. The study collects multimodal data including neuroimaging, cognitive assessments, biospecimens, and environmental measures through annual in-person assessments and semi-annual remote assessments [4]. Brain imaging occurs bi-annually using harmonized scanner-specific protocols.

HCP Young Adult Protocol: The HCP focuses on deep phenotyping of 1,200 healthy adults (aged 22-35) using cutting-edge multimodal imaging [5]. The protocol includes high-resolution structural, resting-state fMRI, task-fMRI, and diffusion MRI collected on customized 3T and 7T scanners with maximum gradient strength [5]. The extensive data per participant (60 minutes of resting-state fMRI) enables precise individual-level characterization.

UK Biobank Protocol: UK Biobank leverages massive sample size (n = 35,735) with less data per participant (6 minutes of resting-state fMRI) collected on a single scanner type from adults aged 40-69 years [1]. This design prioritizes population-level representation across middle to late adulthood.

Analytical Workflows for Effect Size Estimation

The fundamental workflow for large-scale BWAS involves coordinated processing across imaging and behavioral data:

Image Preprocessing and Quality Control: The ABCD Study applies rigorous denoising strategies including frame censoring (filtered framewise displacement < 0.08 mm) to mitigate motion artifacts [1]. This stringent approach reduces the analyzable sample but ensures higher data quality (n = 3,928 from >8 minutes of resting-state data after censoring).

Feature Extraction: Studies typically extract features at multiple levels of anatomical resolution, including cortical vertices, regions of interest, and networks for structural data, and connections (edges), principal components, and networks for functional data [1].

Statistical Analysis: Univariate approaches correlate individual brain features with behavioral phenotypes. Multivariate methods like support vector regression (SVR) and canonical correlation analysis (CCA) provide enhanced power but reduced interpretability [1].

Effect Size Estimation and Replication: Analyses examine sampling variability through split-half replication and cross-dataset validation (e.g., comparing ABCD, HCP, and UK Biobank effect size distributions) [1].

Advanced Computational Approaches

Emerging methodologies leverage these datasets for more sophisticated analyses:

Whole-Brain Network Modeling: One approach uses supercritical Hopf bifurcation models to simulate interactions among brain regions, with parameters calibrated against HCP resting-state data [6]. Deep learning models trained on synthetic BOLD signals predict bifurcation parameters that distinguish cognitive states with 62.63% accuracy (versus 12.50% chance) [6].

Cell-Type-Specific Genetic Integration: The BASIC framework integrates bulk and single-cell expression quantitative trait loci through "axis-quantitative trait loci" to decompose bulk-tissue effects along orthogonal axes of cell-type expression [7]. This approach increases power equivalent to a 76.8% sample size boost and improves colocalization with brain-related traits by 53.5% versus single-cell studies alone [7].

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Large-Scale Brain-Behavior Research

Resource	Type	Function	Example Implementation
ABCD Data	Dataset	Longitudinal developmental brain-behavior associations	Studying substance use risk factors in adolescence [4]
HCP Data	Dataset	Deep phenotyping of brain connectivity	Mapping individual differences in brain network topology [5]
UK Biobank Data	Dataset	Population-level brain aging associations	Identifying biomarkers of age-related cognitive decline [1]
BrainEffeX	Tool	Effect size exploration and power analysis	Estimating expected effect sizes for study planning [8]
BASIC	Method	Integrating bulk and single-cell eQTLs	Identifying cell-type-specific genetic regulation [7]
Hopf Bifurcation Model	Computational Model	Simulating whole-brain network dynamics	Predicting individual differences in cognitive task performance [6]

Implications for Research and Drug Development

Study Design and Power Analysis

The established effect sizes enable realistic power calculations. For instance, detecting a correlation of r = 0.1 with 80% power at α = 0.05 requires approximately 780 participants, while detecting r = 0.05 requires over 3,000 participants [1] [8]. Tools like BrainEffeX facilitate this process by providing empirically-derived effect size estimates for various experimental designs [8].

Biomarker Discovery and Validation

Large datasets enable rigorous biomarker validation. For example, bifurcation parameters from whole-brain network models significantly distinguish task-based brain states from resting states (p < 0.0001 for most comparisons), with task conditions exhibiting higher bifurcation values [6]. Such model-derived parameters show promise as biomarkers for neurological disorder assessment.

Precision Medicine Applications

Integration of neuroimaging with genetic data advances precision medicine goals. Single-cell eQTL Mendelian randomization analyses identify causal relationships between cell-type-specific gene expression and disorder risk, such as astrocyte-specific VIM expression increasing ADHD risk (β = 0.167, p = 1.63 × 10⁻⁵) [9]. These findings reveal novel therapeutic targets for drug development.

The consortium era has fundamentally transformed brain-behavior research by establishing new methodological standards and revealing the true scale of neurobiological effects. The ABCD Study, HCP, and UK Biobank have demonstrated that reproducible brain-wide association studies require thousands of individuals, providing realistic effect size estimates that should guide future study design. As the field advances, integrating multimodal data across biological scales—from single-cell genomics to whole-brain networks—will further advance our understanding of brain-behavior relationships and accelerate the development of biomarkers and therapeutic interventions.

For decades, psychological science has relied on predefined constructs—inhibitory control, intelligence, emotional regulation—as fundamental units of analysis. These constructs traditionally shaped hypothesis-driven approaches, where researchers developed tasks to measure these presumed latent traits and sought their neural correlates. This approach, exemplified by Brain-Wide Association Studies (BWAS), has faced a replicability crisis driven by methodological limitations [2]. The emergence of data-driven frameworks represents a fundamental paradigm shift, moving from verifying predefined constructs to discovering biological and behavioral patterns directly from complex datasets. This whitepaper examines the technical foundations, methodologies, and implications of this transformative approach for researchers and drug development professionals.

This shift is characterized by moving from small-scale studies to approaches that leverage both large-sample consortia (e.g., UK Biobank, ABCD Study) and high-sampling "precision" designs [2]. The limitations of the traditional approach are particularly evident for clinically relevant variables like inhibitory control, which has shown persistently low prediction accuracy (r < 0.1) from brain measures in large datasets [2]. This failure suggests the underlying construct may not be captured by traditional task measures, or that its neural substrates are more complex than previously theorized. Data-driven frameworks address these limitations by prioritizing reliable individual-level estimates over group-level constructs, thereby enabling more precise mapping between brain function and behavior.

The Crisis of Traditional Constructs and Methods

Quantifiable Limitations in Current Approaches

Traditional BWAS have demonstrated systematic limitations, particularly when dealing with complex behavioral phenotypes. The following table summarizes key performance variations across different behavioral measures in prediction studies:

Table 1: Prediction Performance Variation Across Behavioral Measures in BWAS [2]

Behavioral Measure Category	Example Task/Survey	Typical Prediction Accuracy (r)	Clinical Relevance
Demographic Variables	Age	~0.58	Moderate
Cognitive Performance	Vocabulary (Picture Matching)	~0.39	High
Cognitive Performance	Flanker Task (Inhibitory Control)	<0.10	High
Self-Report Surveys	NEO Openness	~0.26	Variable

The strikingly low prediction accuracy for inhibitory control is particularly concerning given its central role in psychiatric disorders including depression and addiction [2]. This discrepancy suggests that traditional task-based measures may fail to capture the complex neurobiological reality of these processes, or that the constructs themselves do not align with the brain's functional architecture.

The Measurement Reliability Crisis

A fundamental issue undermining traditional approaches is inadequate measurement reliability. Many cognitive tasks used in neuroimaging studies provide imprecise individual estimates due to insufficient trial numbers:

Table 2: Impact of Measurement Reliability on Brain-Behavior Associations [2]

Measurement Factor	Typical Study Practice	Precision Approach	Impact on BWAS
fMRI Data Duration	<20 minutes	>20-30 minutes per participant	Improves functional connectivity reliability
Cognitive Task Duration	~5 minutes (e.g., 40 flanker trials)	~60 minutes (>5,000 trials across days)	Reduces within-subject variability and measurement error
Analysis Approach	Group-level parcellations	Individual-specific parcellations	Increases prediction accuracy for traits like intelligence

Research demonstrates that insufficient per-participant data not only creates noisy individual estimates but also inflates between-subject variability [2]. This measurement error fundamentally distorts BWAS efforts because noise attenuates correlations between brain and behavioral measures and diminishes machine learning prediction performance [2].

Foundational Methodologies of Data-Driven Frameworks

Precision Approaches and Extended Sampling

The precision approach (also termed "deep," "dense," or "high-sampling") addresses reliability limitations by collecting extensive data per participant across multiple contexts and testing sessions [2]. The core principle involves trade-off optimization between participant numbers and data quality per participant [2]. This methodology enhances statistical power by strengthening measure reliability to minimize noise and improving measure validity to maximize signal [2].

Functional Decomposition Frameworks

Data-driven neuroimaging requires advanced analytical approaches for decomposing complex brain data. A structured framework for functional decomposition classifies methods across three key dimensions [10]:

Table 3: Functional Decomposition Framework for Neuroimaging Data [10]

Attribute	Categories	Description	Example Methods/Atlases
Source	Anatomic	Derived from structural features	AAL Atlas [10]
	Functional	Identified through coherent neural activity	NeuroMark [10]
	Multimodal	Leverages multiple data modalities	Glasser Atlas [10]
Mode	Categorical	Discrete, binary regions with rigid boundaries	Atlas-based parcellations
	Dimensional	Continuous, overlapping representations	ICA, gradient mapping
Fit	Predefined	Fixed atlas applied directly to data	Yeo 17 Network [10]
	Data-Driven	Derived from data without constraints	Study-specific parcellations
	Hybrid	Spatial priors refined by individual data	NeuroMark pipeline [10]

Hybrid approaches like the NeuroMark pipeline offer particular promise by integrating the strengths of predefined and data-driven methods [10]. These approaches use templates derived from large datasets as spatial priors but then employ spatially constrained ICA to estimate subject-specific maps and timecourses [10]. This preserves correspondence between subjects while capturing individual variability, addressing a critical limitation of fixed atlases that assume uniform functional organization across individuals [10].

Experimental Protocols and Implementation

Protocol 1: Precision Phenotyping for Inhibitory Control

Objective: To obtain highly reliable individual estimates of inhibitory control performance through extensive within-subject sampling [2].

Materials and Setup:

• Standard cognitive testing environment with controlled stimuli presentation
• Response recording system with millisecond accuracy
• Four different inhibitory control paradigms (e.g., Flanker, Stroop, Stop-Signal, Simon tasks)
• Data management system for longitudinal tracking

Procedure:

• Testing Schedule: Administer testing across 36 non-consecutive days to account for day-to-day performance variability
• Trial Volume: Collect >5,000 total trials per participant distributed across the four paradigms
• Session Structure: Each session includes all four paradigms with randomized task order
• Data Quality Monitoring: Implement real-time quality checks for response accuracy and timing
• Reliability Assessment: Calculate within-subject reliability metrics after each testing block

Analytical Approach:

• Compute trial-level variability metrics for each participant
• Model within-subject and between-subject variance components
• Establish minimum data requirements for reliable individual classification
• Integrate with neuroimaging data using individual-specific analysis frameworks

This protocol directly addresses the measurement limitations of traditional studies where inhibitory control might be assessed with only 40 trials total [2]. The extensive sampling enables differentiation between true individual differences and measurement noise.

Protocol 2: Hybrid Functional Decomposition for Individualized Biomarkers

Objective: To derive individualized functional network maps that balance neurobiological validity with sensitivity to individual differences [10].

Materials and Setup:

• High-quality fMRI data (≥20-30 minutes of task or resting-state data)
• Computational infrastructure for intensive image processing
• NeuroMark pipeline or similar spatially constrained ICA implementation
• Template components derived from large normative datasets

Procedure:

• Data Acquisition: Collect high-temporal-resolution fMRI data during resting state or task performance
• Preprocessing: Implement standardized preprocessing pipeline (motion correction, normalization, etc.)
• Template Selection: Load appropriate spatial priors derived from large-scale datasets
• Spatially Constrained ICA: Apply NeuroMark pipeline to estimate subject-specific maps while maintaining correspondence to template components [10]
• Component Validation: Verify neurobiological validity of resulting networks
• Feature Extraction: Quantify network properties (connectivity strength, spatial extent, dynamics)

Analytical Approach:

• Compare predictive accuracy of hybrid approach versus predefined atlases
• Quantify cross-subject correspondence of networks
• Assess individual variability in network topography
• Relate network features to behavioral measures using machine learning

This hybrid approach has demonstrated superior predictive accuracy compared to predefined atlas-based methods [10], making it particularly valuable for clinical applications and drug development targeting specific neural circuits.

Table 4: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Data-Driven Brain-Behavior Research

Resource Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Key Features
Consortium Datasets	UK Biobank, ABCD Study, Human Connectome Project	Provide large-sample data for discovery and validation	Multimodal data, diverse populations, longitudinal design
Analysis Pipelines	NeuroMark, Group ICA, Connectome Workbench	Enable standardized processing and decomposition	Hybrid approaches, individual-specific mapping, reproducibility
Computational Tools	Advanced ICA algorithms, Dynamic Causal Modeling	Uncover complex patterns in high-dimensional data	Higher-order statistics, nonlinear modeling, network dynamics
Experimental Paradigms	Rapid-event-related designs, Multi-task batteries	Maximize information yield per imaging session	Cognitive domain coverage, efficiency, reliability
Biomarker Validation Platforms	Cross-study comparison frameworks, Lifespan datasets	Test generalizability and clinical utility	Diverse samples, standardized metrics, clinical outcomes

Advanced Technical Implementation

Dynamic Fusion and Multimodal Integration

The next frontier in data-driven neuroscience involves dynamic fusion models that integrate multiple data modalities while preserving temporal information [10]. These approaches can incorporate static measures (e.g., gray matter structure) with dynamic measures (e.g., time-varying functional connectivity) to create more comprehensive models of brain function [10].

Higher-Order Statistical Approaches

Moving beyond simple correlations requires implementation of higher-order statistical methods that can capture complex, nonlinear relationships in brain-behavior data [10]. Independence and higher-order statistics play crucial roles in disentangling relevant features from high-dimensional neuroimaging data [10]. These approaches are particularly valuable for identifying interactive effects between multiple neural systems and their relationship to behavioral outcomes.

Implications for Drug Development and Clinical Translation

The shift to data-driven frameworks has profound implications for neuropharmacology and clinical trials. First, precision phenotyping enables better patient stratification by identifying biologically distinct subgroups within traditional diagnostic categories [2]. Second, individualized functional decompositions provide more sensitive biomarkers for target engagement and treatment response [10]. Third, dynamic network measures can capture treatment effects on neural circuit interactions that might be missed by focusing on isolated brain regions.

For drug development professionals, these approaches offer opportunities to:

• Identify more homogeneous patient populations for clinical trials
• Develop circuit-specific biomarkers for target engagement
• Detect subtle treatment effects through individualized baselines
• Understand individual differences in treatment response

The integration of data-driven approaches with experimental interventional tools (optogenetics, chemogenetics) creates particularly powerful frameworks for establishing causal relationships between neural circuit dynamics and behavior [11]. This convergence represents the future of translational neuroscience.

The paradigm shift from construct-driven to data-driven approaches represents a fundamental transformation in how we study the relationship between brain and behavior. By prioritizing reliable individual-level measurement and letting patterns emerge from complex datasets rather than imposing predefined constructs, this framework offers a more biologically-grounded path forward. The technical methodologies outlined—from precision phenotyping to hybrid functional decomposition—provide researchers with concrete tools to implement this approach.

For the field to fully realize this potential, increased collaboration between experimentalists and quantitative scientists is essential [11]. Furthermore, establishing standardized platforms for data sharing and method validation will accelerate progress [11]. As these approaches mature, they promise not only to advance fundamental knowledge but also to transform how we diagnose and treat brain disorders through more precise, individualized biomarkers and interventions.

For decades, neuroscience has relied on theory-driven frameworks to categorize brain functions and disorders. The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) represent top-down approaches that organize brain functions into predefined domains such as "positive valence systems" or "negative valence systems" based on expert consensus [12]. However, a significant challenge has emerged: these categories often do not align well with the underlying brain circuitry revealed by modern neuroimaging techniques [13] [12]. This misalignment poses a substantial obstacle for developing effective, biologically grounded treatments for mental disorders.

The emergence of natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning technologies now enables a paradigm shift toward data-driven discovery. By applying computational techniques to vast scientific literature and brain data, researchers can extract patterns directly from the data, generating neuroscientific ontologies that more accurately reflect the organization of brain function [12]. This approach moves beyond human-defined categories to uncover the true functional architecture of the brain, potentially transforming how we understand, diagnose, and treat mental disorders. This technical guide explores the methodologies, experimental protocols, and practical implementations of these data-driven approaches, providing researchers with the tools to participate in this transformative field.

Core Methodologies: From Text to Ontology

Natural Language Processing Foundations

The engineering of new neuroscientific ontologies relies on sophisticated NLP pipelines that process massive corpora of neuroscientific literature. These systems employ a range of techniques from information extraction to topic modeling to identify relationships between brain structures and functions [14]. The fundamental process involves:

• Named Entity Recognition (NER): Identifies and classifies key entities in text, such as brain structures (e.g., "insula," "cingulate") and function terms (e.g., "memory," "reward") [15]
• Relation Extraction: Detects semantic relationships between entities, such as which brain circuits are associated with specific cognitive functions [14]
• Topic Modeling: Extracts latent themes or topics from large document collections, grouping related function terms that frequently co-occur in the literature [12]

Modern implementations often leverage deep learning architectures like Transformers and BERT, which have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in understanding contextual relationships in scientific text [14]. These models can be fine-tuned on specialized neuroscience corpora to improve their domain-specific performance.

Machine Learning for Functional Domain Clustering

Once relevant entities and relationships are extracted from the literature, machine learning algorithms cluster these elements into coherent functional domains. Unsupervised learning techniques are particularly valuable for this task, as they allow natural groupings to emerge without predefined categories. Common approaches include:

• Clustering algorithms (e.g., k-means, hierarchical clustering) to group brain circuits with similar functional profiles
• Dimensionality reduction techniques (e.g., PCA, t-SNE) for visualizing high-dimensional relationships between brain functions and structures
• Network analysis to model the complex interactions between different functional systems

These methods have revealed that the brain's functional architecture often differs substantially from theory-driven frameworks. For example, in one comprehensive analysis, data-driven domains emerged as memory, reward, cognition, vision, manipulation, and language—noticeably lacking separate domains for emotion, which instead appeared integrated within memory and reward circuits [12].

Table 1: Comparison of Theory-Driven vs. Data-Driven Neuroscientific Ontologies

Feature	Theory-Driven (RDoC)	Data-Driven (NLP/ML)
Origin	Expert consensus	Computational analysis of literature and brain data
Domains	Positive valence, Negative valence, Cognitive systems, Social processes, Arousal/regulatory, Sensorimotor	Memory, Reward, Cognition, Vision, Manipulation, Language
Emotion Processing	Separate domains for positive and negative valence	Integrated within memory and reward circuits
Basis	Psychological theory	Statistical patterns in published literature
Circuit-Function Mapping	Moderate consistency with brain circuitry	High consistency with brain circuitry

Experimental Protocols and Validation Frameworks

Large-Scale Literature Mining and Analysis

The seminal work by Beam et al. demonstrates a comprehensive protocol for data-driven ontology development through large-scale literature mining [12]. This approach can be replicated and extended by following these methodological steps:

• Data Collection: Gather a large corpus of neuroscientific literature. Beam et al. analyzed over 18,000 fMRI research papers published over a 25-year period.
• Coordinate Extraction: Extract the x, y, z coordinates of brain activations reported in each paper and map them to a standardized brain atlas with 118 gray matter structures.
• Term Extraction: Identify and extract brain function terms (e.g., "memory," "reward," "cognition") from publicly available sources including the RDoC framework.
• Co-occurrence Mapping: Determine which function terms co-occur with specific brain circuits in the literature, creating a circuit-function association matrix.
• Clustering Analysis: Apply clustering algorithms to identify natural groupings of function terms that consistently associate with similar brain circuits.
• Domain Naming: For each cluster, select the 25 or fewer most salient function terms to name the resulting data-driven domains.
• Validation: Split the data into training and test sets to validate the robustness of the identified domains.

This protocol offers a systematic, reproducible approach to ontology development that prioritizes biological reality over theoretical convenience.

Latent Variable Models for Ontology Validation

To quantitatively compare data-driven ontologies with existing frameworks, researchers can employ latent variable models, particularly bifactor analysis [13]. The experimental protocol involves:

• Data Compilation: Curate a substantial set of whole-brain task-based fMRI activation maps from multiple studies. One validation study utilized 84 activation maps from 19 studies involving 6,192 participants [13].
• Model Specification:
  • Develop an RDoC-specific factor model where maps load only onto their theoretical domains
  • Create an RDoC bifactor model that adds a general factor reflecting domain-general activation
  • Generate data-driven specific factor and bifactor models based on empirical patterns
• Model Fitting: Use confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to fit each model to the activation data.
• Model Comparison: Evaluate model fit using robust indices including RMSEA, CFI, TLI, AIC, and BIC.
• Cross-Validation: Test the best-performing model on held-out data and external datasets, such as coordinate-based activation maps from Neurosynth.

Research using this approach has demonstrated that data-driven bifactor models consistently outperform theory-driven models in capturing the actual patterns of brain activation across diverse tasks [13].

Figure 1: Workflow for Data-Driven Ontology Development from Neuroscientific Literature

Implementation: Tools and Technical Solutions

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Implementing data-driven ontology research requires a suite of specialized tools and resources. The following table details essential components of the research pipeline:

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Tools for Data-Driven Ontology Development

Tool Category	Specific Examples	Function & Application
NLP Libraries	SpaCy, NLTK, Transformers	Text preprocessing, named entity recognition, relation extraction
Machine Learning Frameworks	Scikit-learn, TensorFlow, PyTorch	Implementing clustering algorithms, neural networks, and dimensionality reduction
Neuroimaging Data Tools	fMRI preprocessing pipelines, ICA algorithms	Processing raw brain imaging data for analysis
Brain Atlases	Allen Brain Atlas, AAL, Brainnetome	Standardized reference frameworks for mapping brain structures
Coordinate Databases	Neurosynth, BrainMap	Large repositories of brain activation coordinates from published studies
Statistical Analysis Tools	R, Python (SciPy, StatsModels)	Implementing bifactor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and other statistical models
Visualization Platforms	Neuro-knowledge.org, Brain Explorer	Exploring and visualizing data-driven domains and their relationships

Hybrid Approaches for Functional Decomposition

Beyond pure text mining, researchers can employ hybrid neuroimaging approaches that combine data-driven discovery with anatomical priors. The NeuroMark pipeline exemplifies this approach [10]. Its methodology includes:

• Template Creation: Running blind Independent Component Analysis (ICA) on multiple large datasets to identify a replicable set of components.
• Spatial Priors: Using these components as spatial priors in a single-subject spatially constrained ICA analysis.
• Individual Estimation: Estimating subject-specific maps and timecourses while maintaining correspondence between individuals.
• Automated Processing: Fully automating the ICA pipeline for consistent, reproducible results.

This hybrid approach balances the richness of data-driven discovery with the comparability of standardized frameworks, addressing a key challenge in neuroimaging research.

Figure 2: Hybrid NeuroMark Pipeline for Functional Decomposition

Implications and Future Directions

Clinical Applications and Precision Psychiatry

The data-driven ontologies emerging from NLP and machine learning have profound implications for understanding and treating mental disorders. By moving beyond symptom-based classifications that often poorly align with brain circuitry, these approaches enable:

• Circuit-Based Diagnoses: Defining mental health conditions based on dysfunction in specific brain circuits rather than symptom clusters [12]
• Targeted Interventions: Developing treatments that directly address the specific neural circuits implicated in an individual's pathology
• Biomarker Discovery: Identifying robust neurobiological markers for treatment selection and monitoring
• Transdiagnostic Understanding: Revealing common neural substrates across traditionally separate diagnostic categories

This approach aligns with the broader goals of the BRAIN Initiative, which emphasizes understanding the brain at a circuit level to develop better treatments for brain disorders [11].

Emerging Trends and Methodological Innovations

The field of data-driven ontology development continues to evolve rapidly, with several promising directions emerging:

• Dynamic Fusion Models: Techniques that incorporate multiple time-resolved data fusion decompositions, capturing both static and dynamic aspects of brain organization [10]
• Multimodal Integration: Combining information from fMRI, structural MRI, genetics, and other data sources to create more comprehensive ontologies
• Deep Learning Architectures: Applying increasingly sophisticated neural networks to discover complex, hierarchical relationships in neuroscientific data
• Cross-Species Alignment: Developing methods to align ontologies across different species to facilitate translational research
• Real-Time Applications: Creating systems that can continuously update ontologies as new research is published

These innovations promise to further enhance the biological accuracy and clinical utility of neuroscientific ontologies, potentially transforming how we conceptualize and address disorders of the brain.

The application of NLP and machine learning to engineer new neuroscientific ontologies represents a paradigm shift in how we understand brain organization and function. By allowing the data—rather than theoretical frameworks—to drive categorization, these approaches reveal a functional architecture of the brain that more accurately reflects its biological reality. The methodologies outlined in this technical guide provide researchers with a roadmap for participating in this transformative area of research.

As these data-driven ontologies continue to evolve and mature, they hold significant promise for advancing both basic neuroscience and clinical practice. By grounding our understanding of mental processes and disorders in the actual circuitry of the brain, we move closer to the goal of precision psychiatry—developing targeted, effective interventions based on the unique neurobiological characteristics of each individual. The engineering of new neuroscientific ontologies thus represents not merely a technical achievement, but a fundamental step toward more effective understanding and treatment of the most complex disorders of the human brain.

The long-held distinction between the 'emotional' and the 'cognitive' brain is fundamentally flawed. Modern neuroscience, powered by data-intensive research methods, reveals that these processes are deeply interwoven in the fabric of neural circuitry [16]. A data-driven exploratory approach is crucial for elucidating these complex associations, moving beyond simplistic anatomical maps to understand how dynamic, multi-scale networks give rise to integrated mental states [17]. This whitepaper synthesizes recent groundbreaking studies that employ advanced neuroimaging, electrophysiology, and computational modeling to uncover surprising circuit-function links. The findings presented herein are not only transforming our basic understanding of brain organization but also paving the way for novel therapeutic interventions in neuropsychiatric disorders by identifying precise neural targets.

Experimental Findings on Integrated Neural Circuits

From Sensation to Sustained Emotion: A Two-Phase Neural Process

Key Experimental Protocol: A study led by Dr. Karl Deisseroth at Stanford University investigated how a transient sensory experience evolves into a persistent emotional state [18]. The team used repetitive, aversive but non-painful puffs of air delivered to the cornea of both mice and human participants—analogous to a glaucoma test. Brain activity was monitored throughout the process. To test the specificity of the neural response, the experiment was repeated under the influence of ketamine, an anesthetic known to disrupt the higher-order processing of sensory information [18].

Quantitative Findings: The research identified two distinct temporal phases in the brain's response [18]:

Table 1: Neural Phases of Emotion Formation

Phase	Temporal Profile	Neural Correlates	Behavioral Manifestation
Phase 1: Sensory	Transient (fraction of a second)	A spike in activity within sensory processing circuits.	Reflexive blinking in response to the air puff.
Phase 2: Emotional	Sustained (lingering)	Activity shifts to circuits involved in emotion; response strengthens with successive puffs.	Persistent defensive squinting, increased annoyance in humans, and reduced reward-seeking in mice.

Surprising Circuit-Function Link: The sustained emotional phase was selectively abolished by ketamine, while the reflexive sensory blink remained intact. This demonstrates that emotion is not merely a passive response to a stimulus but an active, sustained brain state that can be pharmacologically dissociated from initial sensation [18]. This finding has profound implications for understanding how transient stressors can lead to prolonged negative emotional states in mood and anxiety disorders.

Prefrontal Cortex as a Customizable Modulator of Sensation and Action

Key Experimental Protocol: MIT neuroscientists investigated how the brain's executive center, the prefrontal cortex (PFC), tailors its feedback to sensory and motor regions based on internal states [19]. The team combined detailed anatomical tracing of circuits in mice with recordings of neural activity as the animals ran on a wheel, viewed images or movies at varying contrasts, and experienced mild air puffs to alter arousal levels. In key causal experiments, the circuits from specific PFC subregions to the visual cortex were selectively blocked to observe the effects on visual encoding [19].

Quantitative Findings: The study revealed that PFC subregions convey specialized information to downstream targets:

Table 2: Specialized Feedback from Prefrontal Subregions

PFC Subregion	Target Region	Information Conveyed	Functional Impact on Target
Anterior Cingulate Area (ACA)	Primary Visual Cortex (VISp)	Arousal level; Motion (binary); Visual contrast.	Sharpens the focus of visual information encoding with increased arousal.
Orbitofrontal Cortex (ORB)	Primary Visual Cortex (VISp)	Arousal (only at high threshold).	Reduces sharpness of visual encoding, potentially suppressing irrelevant distractors.
Both ACA & ORB	Primary Motor Cortex (MOp)	Running speed; Arousal state.	Modulates motor planning and execution based on internal state.

Surprising Circuit-Function Link: The PFC does not broadcast a generic "top-down" signal. Instead, it provides highly customized, subregion- and target-specific feedback. For instance, the ACA and ORB were found to have opposing effects on visual encoding—one enhancing focus and the other dampening it—creating a balanced system for processing sensory information based on the animal's internal state and behavior [19]. This reveals a nuanced circuit-level mechanism for how our internal feelings (e.g., arousal) actively shape our perception of the world.

Automatic Integration of Emotional Cues Across Sensory Channels

Key Experimental Protocol: To test the automaticity of integrating emotional signals from faces and bodies, researchers designed a dual-task experiment [20]. Participants performed a primary task of recognizing emotions from congruent or incongruent face-body compound stimuli while simultaneously performing a secondary digit memorization task under either low or high cognitive load. EEG recordings captured the temporal dynamics of brain activity, and Bayesian analyses were used to robustly test for the absence of an interaction between cognitive load and integration effects [20].

Quantitative Findings: The study provided strong behavioral and neural evidence for automatic integration:

Table 3: Metrics of Automatic Emotional Integration

Measure	Finding	Implication for Automaticity
Behavioral Accuracy	Emotion recognition was better for congruent face-body pairs than incongruent pairs.	Contextual effect exists (prerequisite for testing automaticity).
Cognitive Load Interaction	Bayesian analysis showed strong evidence for the absence of a significant interaction with cognitive load.	The integration process is efficient, a key criterion for automaticity.
Neural Timing (ERP)	Incongruency detection reflected in early neural responses (P100, N200).	The integration process is fast, another key criterion for automaticity.
Influence Asymmetry	Bodily expressions had a stronger influence on facial emotion recognition than the reverse.	A default attentional bias makes body language a potent contextual cue.

Surprising Circuit-Function Link: The integration of multi-sensory emotional cues is so fundamental that it operates automatically, independent of limited cognitive resources. This efficient and fast neural process ensures that we rapidly form a unified emotional perception, with body language often dominating over facial cues, especially when cognitive resources are stretched thin [20].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Reagents and Tools for Circuit-Function Research

Research Reagent / Tool	Function in Experimental Protocol
Ketamine	An NMDA receptor antagonist used to pharmacologically dissociate transient sensory processing from sustained emotional brain states [18].
Anatomical Tracers	Chemicals or viruses used for detailed mapping of neural circuits, such as those connecting prefrontal subregions to visual and motor cortices [19].
FREQ-NESS Algorithm	A novel neuroimaging method that disentangles overlapping brain networks based on their dominant frequency, revealing how networks reconfigure in real-time to stimuli [21].
Diffusion MRI	A non-invasive imaging technique used to reconstruct the brain's white matter structural connectome across the lifespan, revealing large-scale network reorganization [22].
Event-Related Potentials (ERPs)	EEG components (e.g., P100, N200, P300) used to track the millisecond-scale temporal dynamics of cognitive and emotional processes, such as conflict detection [20].
Bayesian Statistical Analyses	A statistical framework used to provide robust evidence for the absence of an effect, such as the lack of cognitive load influence on emotional integration [20].

Visualizing Key Pathways and Workflows

Prefrontal Cortex Feedback Modulation

Two-Phase Emotion Formation Workflow

Automatic Emotional Integration Experiment

The convergence of evidence from molecular, systems, and cognitive neuroscience underscores a fundamental principle: cognition and emotion are integrated through a complex web of specific, malleable neural circuits. The findings detailed in this whitepaper—ranging from the temporal dynamics of emotion formation to the customized feedback of the PFC and the automaticity of emotional cue integration—provide a compelling new framework for understanding brain-behavior associations. The data-driven methods that enabled these discoveries, such as FREQ-NESS for dynamic network analysis [21] and large-scale connectome mapping across the lifespan [22], are pushing the field beyond static anatomical models towards a dynamic, network-based understanding of brain function and its disorders. For drug development professionals and researchers, these insights highlight the critical importance of targeting specific circuit-function links and internal brain states, rather than broad anatomical regions, for the next generation of neurotherapeutics. The future of this field lies in further integrating multi-modal, high-dimensional data to build predictive models of brain function, ultimately enabling personalized interventions that restore the delicate balance of the emotional-cognitive brain.

Methodological Arsenal: Precision Designs, Multivariate Modeling, and Hybrid Decompositions for Robust Associations

The field of cognitive neuroscience and psychiatric research is undergoing a fundamental paradigm shift, moving away from traditional group-level analyses toward an individualized approach that prioritizes depth over breadth. This transition is driven by growing recognition that brain-wide association studies (BWAS) relying on small sample sizes have produced widespread replication failures, as they are statistically underpowered to capture the subtle yet clinically meaningful brain-behavior relationships that exist in heterogeneous populations [1]. The conventional model of collecting single timepoint data from dozens of participants has proven inadequate for capturing the dynamic nature of brain function and for establishing reliable biomarkers for psychiatric disorders and substance use vulnerability [23].

Dense sampling—collecting extensive data from fewer individuals across multiple sessions—emerges as a powerful alternative that enables precision functional mapping of individual brains [24] [25]. This approach aligns with the broader thesis of data-driven exploratory research in neuroscience, which seeks to understand how between-person differences in the interplay within and across biological, psychological, and environmental systems leads some individuals to experience mental health disorders or substance use vulnerabilities [23]. By intensively sampling individuals over time, researchers can move beyond group averages to identify individual-specific patterns of brain activity and connectivity that remain stable within persons but differ substantially across persons [24]. This methodological shift has profound implications for drug development, as it promises to identify reliable biomarkers for patient stratification, treatment target engagement, and individualized outcome prediction.

The Statistical Imperative: Why Dense Sampling Is Necessary

The Reproducibility Crisis in Brain-Wide Association Studies

Large-scale analyses using three major neuroimaging datasets (ABCD, HCP, and UK Biobank) with nearly 50,000 total participants have revealed a critical limitation in traditional brain-wide association studies: effect sizes are substantially smaller than previously assumed [1]. The median univariate effect size (|r|) for brain-behavior associations is approximately 0.01, with the top 1% of associations reaching only |r| > 0.06 in rigorously processed data [1]. At typical sample sizes (median n ≈ 25), the 99% confidence interval for univariate associations is r ± 0.52, demonstrating that BWAS effects are strongly vulnerable to inflation by chance [1].

Table 1: Brain-Wide Association Study Effect Sizes by Sample Size

Sample Size	Median	r		Top 1%	r		Replication Rate	Effect Size Inflation
n = 25	0.01	0.06	<50%	High (>100%)
n = 100	0.01	0.06	~50%	High (~80%)
n = 1,000	0.01	0.06	>70%	Moderate (~30%)
n = 3,000+	0.01	0.06	>90%	Low (<10%)

The Psychometric Foundations of Individual Reliability

The statistical power to detect individual differences depends not only on sample size but equally on the reliability of measurement. Test-retest reliability quantifies the consistency of measurements when the same individual is assessed multiple times. Traditional functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies using short measurement durations have demonstrated only moderate reliability, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) typically ranging between 0.2-0.6 for task and resting-state fMRI at the individual level [24]. Dense sampling addresses this limitation by collecting substantial data per individual, thereby improving the signal-to-noise ratio and measurement reliability through aggregation across multiple sessions [24] [25].

The fundamental equation relating reliability to measurable brain-behavior associations can be expressed as:

robserved = rtrue × √(reliabilitybrain × reliabilitybehavior)

Where robserved is the measured correlation, rtrue is the true association, and reliabilitybrain and reliabilitybehavior represent the measurement reliability of neuroimaging and behavioral measures, respectively [1]. This equation explains why improving measurement reliability through dense sampling is essential for accurate brain-behavior mapping.

Methodological Approaches: Implementing Dense Sampling Frameworks

Wearable Neuroimaging Platforms for Naturalistic Data Collection

Recent technological advances have enabled the implementation of dense sampling through wearable, portable neuroimaging systems. A key innovation is a self-administered, wearable functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) platform that incorporates a wireless, portable multichannel fNIRS device, augmented reality guidance for reproducible device placement, and a cloud-based system for remote data access [24]. This platform facilitates the collection of dense-sampled prefrontal cortex (PFC) data in naturalistic settings (e.g., at home, school, or office), allowing for remote monitoring and more accurate representation of brain function during daily activities [24].

In a proof-of-concept study, eight healthy young adults completed ten measurement sessions across three weeks, with each session including self-guided preparation, cognitive testing (N-back, Flanker, and Go/No-Go tasks), and resting-state measurements [24]. Each cognitive test lasted seven minutes, resulting in a total of seventy minutes of data for each task type across the ten sessions—far exceeding the typical measurement duration in conventional neuroimaging studies [24].

Dense Sampling Protocol for Wearable fNIRS: This workflow illustrates the repeated-measures design used in the wearable fNIRS platform validation study, showing the sequence of activities within each session and repetition across multiple sessions [24].

Multimodal Integration: Combining Scanners and Smartphones

An emerging framework for dense sampling combines traditional neuroimaging with smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment to capture dynamic interactions across biological, psychological, and environmental systems [23]. This approach addresses the limitations of laboratory-based assessments by intensively sampling real-world behavior, symptoms, and environmental contexts while periodically measuring neural systems with high spatial resolution.

Table 2: Approaches for Combining Scanner and Smartphone Data in Dense Sampling

Approach	Description	Strengths	Limitations
Bivariate Associations	Correlates static indices from scanners with smartphone data	High ecological validity for behavior; reduces retrospective bias	Correlative only; cannot establish mechanism
Bivariate Change	Measures change in both scanner and smartphone indices across multiple assessments	Provides temporal precedence; stronger evidence for causality	Requires multiple scanner timepoints (often infeasible)
Predictors of Outcomes	Uses scanner and smartphone data as independent predictors of clinical outcomes	Explains unique variance in outcomes beyond self-reports	Often uses aggregated rather than dynamic smartphone data
Brain as Mediator	Treats brain function as explanatory link between predictors and outcomes	Can reveal mechanisms linking environment to symptoms	Requires strong theoretical model and careful temporal ordering

Six distinct approaches have been identified for combining scanner and smartphone data, with the most common being bivariate associations that link in-scanner data with "real-world" behavior captured via smartphones [23]. Creative adaptations include identifying high-stress and low-stress days based on smartphone ratings collected three times daily for two weeks, followed by laboratory scanning sessions on identified high-stress and low-stress days [23].

Endocrine Modulation Studies: The 28andMe Project

Dense sampling designs have proven particularly valuable for studying how dynamic endocrine systems modulate brain function. The '28andMe' project exemplifies this approach, where a single participant underwent daily brain imaging and venipuncture over 30 consecutive days across a complete menstrual cycle, followed by another 30 consecutive days on oral hormonal contraception one year later [26].

This study revealed that estradiol robustly increased whole-brain functional connectivity coherence, particularly enhancing global efficiency within the Default Mode and Dorsal Attention Networks [26]. In contrast, progesterone was primarily associated with reduced coherence across the whole brain [26]. Using dynamic community detection methods, researchers observed striking reorganization events within the default mode network that coincided with peaks in serum estradiol, demonstrating the rapid modulation of functional network architecture by hormonal fluctuations [26].

Quantitative Evidence: Reliability Gains from Dense Sampling

Improved Test-Retest Reliability in fNIRS Studies

The wearable fNIRS platform study demonstrated that dense sampling significantly improves the reliability of functional connectivity measures [24]. Results showed high test-retest reliability and within-participant consistency in both functional connectivity and activation patterns across the ten sessions [24]. Crucially, the study found that an individual's brain data deviated significantly from group-level averages, highlighting the importance of individualized neuroimaging for precise and accurate mapping of brain activity [24].

Table 3: Reliability Comparisons Across Measurement Approaches

Measurement Approach	Modality	ICC Range	Session Duration	Number of Sessions	Key Findings
Traditional fMRI	Task/Rest fMRI	0.2-0.6	Single short session (~10 min)	1-2	Low to moderate reliability for individual differences
Longitudinal fMRI	Cortical thickness	>0.96	Single session	2	High reliability for structural measures
Dense Sampling fNIRS	Resting-state & tasks	High (exact values not reported)	45 min/session	10	High test-retest reliability; individualized patterns stable within persons
Dense Sampling fMRI	Resting-state fMRI	Improved vs. single session	60+ min/session	Multiple (>10)	Individual-specific connectivity patterns emerge with sufficient data

Developmental Studies of Substance Use Vulnerability

Dense sampling approaches have also proven valuable in longitudinal developmental studies examining neurophysiological factors in substance use vulnerability. In a study of 168 adolescents scanned up to four times across 6th to 11th grade (resulting in 469 fMRI timepoints), researchers used T2*-weighted indices as noninvasive measures of basal ganglia tissue iron, an indirect marker of dopaminergic function [27].

Adolescents who reported substance use showed attenuated age-related increases in tissue iron compared to non-users [27]. Additionally, larger incentive-related modulation of cognitive control was associated with lower iron accumulation across adolescence [27]. These findings suggest that developmental phenotypes characterized by diminished maturation of dopamine-related neurophysiology may confer vulnerability to substance use and altered motivation-cognition interactions.

Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Dense Sampling Studies

Implementing dense sampling approaches requires specific methodological tools and reagents. The following table summarizes key resources mentioned across the cited studies:

Table 4: Research Reagent Solutions for Dense Sampling Neuroscience

Resource Category	Specific Solution	Function/Application	Example Studies
Neuroimaging Platforms	Wireless, portable multichannel fNIRS	Enables unsupervised, naturalistic data collection; dense sampling in home environments	[24]
Device Placement Guidance	Augmented reality (AR) via tablet camera	Ensures reproducible device placement across multiple self-administered sessions	[24]
Cognitive Task Software	Tablet-integrated N-back, Flanker, Go/No-Go tests	Provides standardized, synchronized behavioral and brain activity measurements	[24]
Data Management Systems	HIPAA-compliant cloud solutions	Enables remote data access, storage, and monitoring for longitudinal studies	[24]
Hormone Assessment	Daily venipuncture with serum analysis	Provides high-frequency endocrine measures for brain-hormone interaction studies	[26]
Dynamic Connectivity Analysis	Dynamic community detection (DCD) algorithms	Identifies time-varying reorganization of functional network architecture	[26]
Tissue Iron Measurement	T2*-weighted MRI indices	Serves as noninvasive, indirect measure of dopamine-related neurophysiology	[27]
Ambulatory Assessment	Smartphone-based experience sampling	Captures real-world behavior, symptoms, and environmental contexts	[23]

Implications for Drug Development and Precision Medicine

The shift toward dense sampling methodologies has profound implications for drug development and precision medicine approaches in psychiatry and neurology. By enabling reliable identification of individual-specific functional patterns, dense sampling facilitates:

Biomarker Discovery and Patient Stratification

The ability to capture individualized functional connectivity and activation patterns enables identification of neurophysiological subtypes within heterogeneous diagnostic categories [24]. This is particularly valuable for drug development, as different neurophysiological subtypes may respond differently to the same pharmacological treatment [24]. Dense sampling approaches can identify reliable, reproducible individual patterns that serve as ecologically valid biomarkers for clinical applications [24].

Treatment Target Engagement and Monitoring

Dense sampling methods allow for more precise monitoring of treatment response by establishing individual baselines and tracking changes over time [24] [23]. The wearable fNIRS platform, for example, enables remote monitoring of patients' brain responses and cognitive outcomes through a clinician-accessible web portal [24]. This facilitates more sensitive assessment of whether a drug engages its intended neural target and produces meaningful changes in brain function.

Understanding Neuroendocrine Interactions

The dense sampling of endocrine function alongside brain imaging, as demonstrated in the 28andMe project, provides insights into how hormonal fluctuations influence drug response and brain function [26]. This is particularly relevant for developing personalized dosing regimens for medications that interact with endocrine systems and for understanding sex differences in treatment response.

Translational Value of Dense Sampling: This diagram illustrates how methodological advances in dense sampling create foundational knowledge that enables precision medicine applications in drug development and clinical psychiatry [24] [23] [26].

The paradigm of "precision over breadth" represents a fundamental shift in neuroscience research methodology with far-reaching implications for understanding brain-behavior relationships and developing targeted interventions. Dense sampling approaches address the critical limitations of traditional brain-wide association studies by prioritizing within-individual reliability and temporal dynamics over large cross-sectional samples. Through wearable neuroimaging platforms, multimodal integration with smartphone assessment, and high-frequency longitudinal designs, researchers can now capture the individualized functional architecture of the human brain with unprecedented precision.

The evidence from multiple studies consistently demonstrates that dense sampling significantly improves measurement reliability, reveals individual-specific patterns that deviate from group averages, and captures dynamic brain-hormone-behavior interactions that were previously obscured in cross-sectional designs. For drug development professionals, these methodological advances offer exciting opportunities to identify meaningful patient subtypes, validate target engagement, and develop truly personalized therapeutic approaches based on each individual's unique neurophysiological profile.

As the field continues to evolve, the integration of dense sampling with other emerging technologies—including artificial intelligence, advanced network analysis, and digital phenotyping—will further enhance our ability to map the complex, dynamic interplay between brain function and behavior across diverse populations and contexts.

Elucidating the links between brain measures and behavioral traits is a fundamental goal of cognitive and clinical neuroscience, with broad practical implications for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of psychiatric and neurological disorders [2]. The brain-wide association study (BWAS) approach aims to characterize associations between brain measures and behaviors across individuals [28]. However, this field has faced a significant replicability crisis, largely attributable to the historical reliance on small sample sizes and the subtle nature of the underlying effects [2]. Univariate BWAS, which test associations on a voxel-by-voxel or connection-by-connection basis, must employ stringent corrections for multiple comparisons, often resulting in overly conservative thresholds that limit statistical power [29]. Furthermore, even with large consortium datasets, univariate effect sizes for brain-behavior relationships are typically small, ranging from 0 to 0.16 at maximum [2].

Multivariate machine learning approaches present a powerful alternative by combining information from multiple brain features to predict behavioral outcomes. These methods evaluate correlation and covariance patterns across brain regions rather than considering individual features in isolation, providing a signature of neural networks that can more accurately predict individual differences [29]. This technical guide explores the theoretical foundations, methodological frameworks, and practical implementations of multivariate machine learning for boosting prediction accuracy in brain-behavior research, positioning these approaches within the broader thesis of data-driven exploratory science.

Theoretical Foundations: Why Multivariate Approaches Enhance Prediction

Fundamental Advantages Over Univariate Methods

Multivariate analysis techniques have attracted increasing attention in clinical and cognitive neuroscience due to several attractive features that cannot be easily realized by more commonly used univariate, voxel-wise techniques [29]. Unlike univariate approaches that proceed on a voxel-by-voxel basis, multivariate methods evaluate correlation and covariance of activation across brain regions, making their results more easily interpretable as signatures of neural networks [29]. This covariance approach can result in greater statistical power compared to univariate techniques, which are forced to employ very stringent and often overly conservative corrections for voxel-wise multiple comparisons [29].

Multivariate techniques also lend themselves much better to prospective application of results from the analysis of one dataset to entirely new datasets [29]. They can provide information about mean differences and correlations with behavior similarly to univariate approaches, but with potentially greater statistical power and better reproducibility checks [29]. In the context of "brain reading," multivariate approaches have been shown to be both more sensitive and more specific than univariate approaches, not surprisingly since they achieve sparse representations of complex data and can identify the robust features most important for classification and prediction problems [29].

Addressing the Replicability Crisis in Neuroscience

The question of scientific reliability of brain-wide association studies was brought to attention by findings that reproducing mass-univariate association studies requires tens of thousands of participants [28]. This replicability challenge has urged researchers to adopt other methodological approaches [28]. Multivariate machine learning offers one such alternative by leveraging pattern recognition across multiple brain features to enhance predictive power.

Consortium datasets with large numbers of participants, including the Human Connectome Project (HCP), the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study (ABCD), and the UK Biobank, which collectively gather data from thousands to tens of thousands of participants, have been instrumental in demonstrating that replicable BWAS results primarily consist of small effect sizes [2]. Multivariate prediction approaches that combine information from a range of brain features have shown particular effectiveness in improving prediction accuracy within these large datasets [2].

Table 1: Comparison of Univariate and Multivariate Approaches in Brain-Behavior Prediction

Feature	Univariate Approaches	Multivariate Approaches
Unit of Analysis	Individual voxels or connections	Patterns across multiple brain regions
Multiple Comparisons	Stringent corrections needed, reducing power	Holistic patterns reduce multiple comparison burden
Interpretation	Focal activation maps	Neural network signatures
Reproducibility	Often poor with small samples	Enhanced through pattern recognition
Prediction to New Data	Limited generalizability	Better prospective application
Typical Effect Sizes	Small (0-0.16) [2]	Larger through combined predictive power

Methodological Framework: Implementing Multivariate Prediction

Core Machine Learning Workflow

The implementation of multivariate machine learning for brain-behavior prediction follows a systematic workflow designed to maximize predictive accuracy while ensuring generalizability. This process begins with feature extraction from neuroimaging data, proceeds through model training and validation, and culminates in model interpretation and deployment.

Data Acquisition and Preprocessing Considerations

Multivariate prediction requires careful attention to data quality and preprocessing. For individual-level precision, more than 20-30 minutes of fMRI data is typically required to achieve reliable functional connectivity estimates [2]. Similarly, extending the duration of cognitive tasks (e.g., from five minutes to 60 minutes for fluid intelligence tests) can significantly improve predictive accuracy by reducing measurement error [2].

Data preprocessing should address both technical and biological artifacts while preserving individual-specific patterns of brain organization. The structural organization and functional connectivity of the brain vary uniquely across individuals [2]. Thus, rather than assuming group-level correspondence, modeling individual-specific patterns of brain organization can yield more precise measures and facilitate behavioral predictions. Techniques such as 'hyper-aligning' fine-grained features of functional connectivity have been shown to markedly improve the prediction of general intelligence compared to typical region-based approaches [2].

Experimental Protocols and Performance Benchmarks

Key Methodologies in Multivariate Brain-Behavior Prediction

Alzheimer's Disease Prediction Using Clinical and Behavioral Features

A reproducible machine learning methodology for the early prediction of Alzheimer's disease (AD) demonstrates the application of multivariate approaches to clinical neuroscience [30]. This protocol involves:

• Feature Collection: Compiling clinical and behavioral data including Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores, Activities of Daily Living (ADL) assessments, cholesterol levels, and functional assessment scores.

• Comparative Algorithm Analysis: Conducting a comparative analysis of multiple classification algorithms, with the Gradient Boosting classifier yielding the best performance (accuracy: 93.9%, F1-score: 91.8%).

• Model Interpretability: Integrating SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) into the workflow to quantify feature contributions at both global and individual levels, identifying key predictive variables.

• Clinical Deployment: Developing a user-friendly, interactive web application using Streamlit, allowing real-time patient data input and transparent model output visualization to support clinical decision-making [30].

This approach offers a practical tool for clinicians and researchers to support early diagnosis and personalized risk assessment of AD, thus aiding in timely and informed clinical decision-making [30].

Handedness Prediction from Multimodal Brain Imaging

A large-scale analysis of handedness and its variability related to brain structural and functional organization in the UK Biobank (N = 36,024) demonstrates the application of multivariate machine learning to fundamental questions of brain organization [31]. The protocol includes:

• Multimodal Data Integration: Combining multiple modalities of brain imaging data including structural MRI, functional connectivity, and possibly diffusion tensor imaging.

• Multivariate Prediction: Implementing a multivariate machine learning approach to predict individual handedness (right-handedness vs. non-right-handedness).

• Feature Importance Analysis: Identifying the top brain signatures that contributed to prediction through virtual lesion analysis and large-scale decoding analysis.

• Genetic Correlation: Examining genetic contributions to the imaging-derived handedness prediction score, showing significant heritability (h² = 7.55%, p < 0.001) that was slightly higher than for the behavioral measure itself (h² = 6.74%, p < 0.001) [31].

This study found that prediction was driven largely by resting-state functional measures, with the most important brain networks showing functional relevance to hand movement and several higher-level cognitive functions including language, arithmetic, and social interaction [31].

Performance Benchmarks Across Domains

Table 2: Performance Benchmarks of Multivariate Machine Learning in Brain-Behavior Prediction

Prediction Domain	Sample Size	Algorithm	Performance Metrics	Key Predictive Features
Alzheimer's Disease [30]	Not specified	Gradient Boosting	Accuracy: 93.9%, F1-score: 91.8%	MMSE, ADL, cholesterol, functional assessment
Handedness [31]	36,024	Multivariate ML	AUROC: 0.72	Resting-state functional connectivity, motor networks
General Intelligence [2]	Various	Multiple	Vocabulary: r ≈ 0.39	Task-based fMRI, individual-specific parcellations
Inhibitory Control [2]	Various	Multiple	Flanker task: r < 0.1	Task-based fMRI (improves with extended testing)

The Precision Framework: Enhancing Signal-to-Noise Ratio

Integrating Precision Approaches with Multivariate Prediction

Recent research has highlighted that the amount of data collected from each participant is equally crucial as the total number of participants [2]. Precision approaches (also referred to as "deep", "dense", or "high sampling") represent a class of methods that collect extensive per-participant data, often across multiple contexts and days, with careful attention in analysis to alignment, bias, and sources of variability [2]. These approaches can enhance multivariate prediction through two primary mechanisms: minimizing noise and maximizing signal.

Minimizing Measurement Noise

Insufficient per-participant data leads to large measurement errors in both brain and behavioral measures [2]. This noise affects measures of both within- and between-subject variability, and if uncontrolled, they can become confounded. High individual-level noise makes it difficult to reliably estimate individual-level effects, which are often the target of BWAS, and leads to inaccurate estimates of between-subject variability [2].

For example, individual-level estimates of inhibitory control vary widely with short amounts of testing, but this variability can be mitigated by collecting more extensive data from each participant [2]. Less intuitively, insufficient per-participant data can also bias between-subject variability as high within-subject variability inflates estimates of between-subject variability [2]. This is particularly problematic in BWAS because inflated between-subject variability attenuates the correlation between behavioral and brain measures, similarly affecting brain-behavior predictions using machine learning, as measurement error in behavioral variables attenuates prediction performance [2].

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Tools and Resources for Multivariate Brain-Behavior Research

Tool/Resource	Type	Function	Example Implementation
Brain Connectivity Toolbox [32]	Software Library	Complex brain-network analysis	MATLAB toolbox for graph theory metrics
SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) [30]	Interpretation Framework	Model explainability	Quantifying feature contributions in Gradient Boosting models
Streamlit [30]	Deployment Framework	Web application development	Creating interactive interfaces for clinical model deployment
UK Biobank [31]	Data Resource	Large-scale multimodal data	36,024 participants with imaging, genetic, and behavioral data
Precision Behavioral Paradigms [2]	Experimental Design	High-reliability behavioral assessment	5,000+ trial inhibitory control tasks across 36 testing days
Hyperalignment Algorithms [2]	Analysis Technique	Individual-specific brain mapping	Improving prediction of general intelligence
Romano-Wolf Correction [33]	Statistical Method	Multiple comparisons correction	Resampling-based approach for correlated data in CBAS

Multivariate machine learning represents a powerful framework for boosting prediction accuracy by combining brain features, addressing fundamental limitations of traditional univariate approaches. By leveraging pattern recognition across multiple brain regions, implementing rigorous cross-validation protocols, and integrating explainable artificial intelligence techniques, these methods enhance both predictive power and interpretability. The integration of precision approaches that minimize measurement noise through extended data collection per participant further strengthens the potential for robust brain-behavior prediction.

Looking forward, the combination of large-scale consortium datasets with precision approaches that collect extensive per-participant data presents a promising path for advancing the field [2]. This integrated approach leverages the complementary strengths of both methods: large samples provide generalizability and power to detect small effects, while precision designs enhance signal-to-noise ratio and enable more accurate individual characterization. As these methodologies continue to mature and become more accessible to researchers, multivariate machine learning is poised to significantly advance our understanding of brain-behavior relationships and deliver clinically meaningful tools for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment in neuroscience.

In the field of computational neuroimaging, a fundamental tension exists between the need for standardized, comparable brain features and the imperative to capture meaningful individual variability. Traditional approaches have largely fallen into two camps: predefined anatomical atlases, which offer standardization but poor adaptability to individual brain organization, and fully data-driven methods, which excel at capturing individual patterns but suffer from poor generalizability across studies [10]. This methodological divide has posed significant challenges for identifying reproducible biomarkers in brain behavior associations research, particularly in drug development where quantifying subtle, biologically-based changes is paramount.

The hybrid approach represents a principled reconciliation of these competing needs through the integration of spatial priors with data-driven refinement. This framework is grounded in the core principle of "data fidelity"—resisting premature dimensionality reduction in favor of preserving rich, high-dimensional representations of brain organization [10]. By starting with robust templates derived from large-scale healthy populations and adapting them to individual subjects using data-driven techniques, hybrid methods like the NeuroMark pipeline achieve what neither predefined nor fully data-driven approaches can accomplish alone: maintaining cross-subject comparability while capturing clinically relevant individual differences [34] [35].

The theoretical foundation for this approach rests on recognizing the brain as fundamentally a spatiotemporal organ whose functional organization does not perfectly align with anatomical boundaries [10]. This understanding has driven the development of methods that can model the brain's dynamic, overlapping network structure without imposing rigid categorical boundaries that may misrepresent its true organization.

NeuroMark Pipeline: Core Architecture and Methodology

The NeuroMark pipeline implements a sophisticated hybrid framework through a sequential architecture that combines reproducible template generation with adaptive individual subject analysis. The methodology can be conceptualized through three foundational elements: its core architectural principles, the process for creating reliable templates, and the adaptive ICA technique that enables subject-specific refinement.

Core Architectural Principles

NeuroMark employs a fully automated spatially constrained independent component analysis (ICA) framework designed to extract functional network connectivity (FNC) measures from fMRI data that can be linked across datasets, studies, and disorders [34]. The pipeline's design addresses critical limitations of conventional group ICA, where components may vary across different runs due to data property differences, hindering direct comparison across studies [34]. NeuroMark solves this challenge by incorporating spatial network priors derived from independent large samples as guidance for estimating features that are both adaptable to individual subjects and comparable across datasets [34].

Template Generation Process

The first critical phase involves creating reliable functional network templates from large samples of healthy controls. In the original implementation, researchers used two independent datasets: the Human Connectome Project (HCP) and the Genomics Superstruct Project (GSP), totaling over 1,800 healthy controls [34]. The methodology involves:

• Independent Component Estimation: Running group ICA separately on each healthy control dataset to extract initial components.
• Component Matching and Inspection: Identifying reproducible intrinsic connectivity networks (ICNs) by matching and inspecting spatial maps of components from different datasets.
• Template Validation: Establishing a set of highly replicated ICNs that serve as the network templates for subsequent analysis [34].

This process yields a set of spatial priors that represent robust, functionally coherent networks consistently identified across large populations. These templates capture the dominant patterns of functional brain organization while remaining flexible enough to accommodate individual variations.

Adaptive ICA and Individual Subject Analysis

The second phase applies these templates to individual subjects using adaptive ICA techniques such as Group Information Guided ICA (GIG-ICA) or spatially constrained ICA [34]. This process involves:

• Template Application: Using the highly replicated ICNs as network templates.
• Subject-Specific Estimation: Applying an adaptive-ICA method to automatically estimate subject-specific functional networks and associated timecourses while maintaining spatial correspondence across subjects [34].
• Feature Extraction: Computing various functional connectivity features including static or dynamic functional network connectivity (FNC) for subsequent analysis.

This approach enables the extraction of comparable yet individualized biomarkers that preserve subject-specific variability while maintaining the spatial correspondence necessary for group-level analysis and cross-study comparisons [10] [34].

Table 1: NeuroMark Workflow Stages and Functions

Stage	Primary Function	Key Input	Key Output
Template Generation	Identify reproducible functional networks from healthy populations	Large-scale healthy control datasets (HCP, GSP)	Spatial priors (ICN templates)
Subject-Specific Analysis	Estimate individualized functional networks for each subject	Spatial priors + Individual subject fMRI data	Subject-specific networks and timecourses
Feature Computation	Quantify functional connectivity patterns	Subject-specific networks and timecourses	Static and dynamic FNC measures
Validation & Application	Test biomarkers across disorders and datasets	Extracted FNC measures	Disorder-specific biomarkers and classifications

Technical Implementation and Experimental Protocols

Implementing the NeuroMark Framework

The practical implementation of NeuroMark involves a structured pipeline with specific data requirements and processing steps. The framework has been applied to multiple large-scale datasets including the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study with over 10,000 children [36] and the Human Connectome Project for Early Psychosis (HCP-EP) [37].

Data Acquisition Parameters:

• For the ABCD study: Resting-state fMRI data collected on 3T scanner platforms (Siemens Prisma, Philips, GE 750) with TR/TE = 800/30 ms, voxel size = 2.4×2.4×2.4 mm, multiband acceleration = 6 [36]
• For HCP-EP data: High-quality fMRI data acquired using Siemens Prisma 3T scanners with multiband sequence (multiband factor = 8), TR = 720 ms, and 2 mm isotropic resolution [37]

Preprocessing Protocol:

• Distortion Correction: Calculation of distortion field from phase-encoded field maps using topup/FSL algorithm [37]
• Motion Correction: Rigid body motion correction using Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM12) [36] [37]
• Spatial Normalization: Warping fMRI data to standard Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) space using an EPI template [34]
• Smoothing: Application of Gaussian kernel with FWHM = 6 mm [37]
• Quality Control: Examination of correlations between individual masks and group masks, excluding scans with correlations below established thresholds [36]

Time-Course Post-Processing:

• Detrending linear, quadratic, and cubic trends [36]
• Multiple regression of six realignment parameters and their derivatives [36]
• Removal of detected outliers [36]
• Band-pass filtering with cutoff frequency of 0.01-0.15 Hz [36]

Dynamic Functional Connectivity Analysis

For dynamic FNC (dFNC) analysis, the protocol involves:

• Sliding Window Approach: Using a tapered window created by convolving a rectangle (width = 40 TRs = 32s) with a Gaussian (σ = 3 TRs) for segmenting time-courses [36]
• Covariance Estimation: Estimating covariance from the regularized precision matrix using graphical LASSO method with L1 penalty for each window [36]
• State Identification: Performing k-means clustering with Euclidean distance on dFNC to identify recurring FC patterns [36]
• Optimal State Determination: Using elbow criterion to estimate the optimal number of states [36]

Validation and Reproducibility Protocols

The NeuroMark framework incorporates rigorous validation methods:

• Cross-Disorder Validation: Applying the same templates to multiple disorders including schizophrenia, autism spectrum disorder, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder [34]
• Cross-Age Validation: Testing template applicability across lifespan from infants to aging populations [35]
• Multimodal Expansion: Extending templates to structural MRI and diffusion MRI data [35]

Quantitative Validation and Research Applications

Performance Across Brain Disorders

The NeuroMark pipeline has been quantitatively validated across multiple psychiatric and neurological disorders, demonstrating its utility for identifying robust biomarkers.

Table 2: NeuroMark Validation Across Disorders

Disorder	Sample Size	Key Findings	Classification Accuracy
Schizophrenia	2442 subjects across studies	Replicated brain network abnormalities across independent datasets; hypoconnectivity within thalamocortical circuits [34]	~90% accuracy for chronic SZ [34]
Early Phase Psychosis	165 subjects (113 patients, 52 HC)	Shared sFNC abnormalities between thalamus and sensorimotor domain; dynamic state alterations [37]	Differentiation of affective vs. non-affective psychosis [37]
Alzheimer's Disease & MCI	ADNI dataset (800+ subjects)	Revealed gradual functional connectivity changes from HC to MCI to AD [34] [38]	High sensitivity to progressive impairment [34]
Bipolar vs. Major Depressive Disorder	Multi-site datasets	Captured biomarkers distinguishing these clinically overlapping disorders [34]	~90% classification accuracy [34]

In studies of early psychosis, NeuroMark revealed that both affective and non-affective psychosis patients showed common abnormalities in static FNC between the thalamus and sensorimotor domain, and between subcortical regions and the cerebellum [37]. However, each group also displayed unique connectivity signatures, with affective psychosis patients showing specifically decreased sFNC between superior temporal gyrus and paracentral lobule, while non-affective psychosis patients showed increased sFNC between fusiform gyrus and superior medial frontal gyrus [37].

Dynamic Functional Connectivity in Children

Application to the ABCD study with 10,988 children revealed five distinct brain states with unique relationships to cognitive performance and mental health [36]. Crucially, the study found that:

• The occurrence of a strongly connected state with maximal within-network synchrony and anticorrelations between networks was negatively correlated with cognitive performance and positively correlated with dimensional psychopathology [36]
• Opposite relationships were observed for a state showing integration of sensory networks and antagonism between default-mode and sensorimotor networks [36]
• Attention problems mediated the effect of dFNC states on cognitive performance, revealing a potential pathway through which brain dynamics influence behavior [36]

Lifespan and Cross-Modal Applications

Recent expansions of NeuroMark have demonstrated remarkable generalizability:

• Lifespan Templates: New templates for infants, adolescents, and aging cohorts show "remarkably high similarity of the resulting adapted components, even across extreme age differences" [35]
• Multimodal Expansion: Successful development of structural and diffusion MRI templates using over 30,000 scans [35]
• Spatio-Temporal Dynamics: Novel 5D parcellation approaches that model changes in network shape, size, and translation over time [39]

Research Reagent Solutions: Essential Materials and Tools

Table 3: Essential Research Tools for Hybrid Neuroimaging

Tool/Resource	Function	Application in Hybrid Approach
NeuroMark Framework	Automated spatially constrained ICA pipeline	Core analytical framework for extracting comparable biomarkers
GIFT Toolbox	Group ICA of fMRI Toolbox	Implementation platform for NeuroMark
HCP/GSP Datasets	Large-scale healthy control reference data	Source for deriving reproducible spatial templates
ABCD Study Data	Developmental neuroimaging dataset	Validation in children's cognitive and mental health research
ADNI Dataset	Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging initiative	Testing biomarkers in neurodegenerative disorders
fMRI Preprocessing Tools (FSL, SPM)	Data cleaning and preparation	Standardized pipeline for motion correction, normalization
Graphical LASSO	Sparse inverse covariance estimation	Dynamic FNC estimation with regularization

Visualizing the NeuroMark Workflow and Dynamic FNC Analysis

NeuroMark Framework Workflow

Dynamic FNC Analysis Pipeline

The hybrid approach exemplified by the NeuroMark pipeline represents a significant methodological advancement in brain behavior associations research. By integrating spatial priors with data-driven refinement, this framework addresses fundamental challenges in neuroimaging: balancing individual variability with cross-study comparability, and maintaining analytic rigor while enabling clinical applicability.

For drug development professionals and clinical researchers, the hybrid approach offers a pathway toward biologically-based diagnostic categories that transcend traditional symptom-based classifications [34]. The ability to identify both shared and unique connectivity patterns across disorders with overlapping symptoms [34] [37] provides a powerful framework for developing targeted therapeutics and identifying patient subgroups most likely to respond to specific treatments.

The ongoing expansions of hybrid frameworks—including lifespan templates, multimodal integration, and dynamic spatio-temporal modeling [35] [39]—promise to further enhance their utility in mapping the complex relationships between brain organization and behavior. As these methods continue to evolve, they offer the potential to transform how we conceptualize, diagnose, and treat disorders of brain function through a more nuanced understanding of individual neurobiology.

Leveraging Task fMRI and Dynamic Functional Connectivity for Targeted Insights

Dynamic functional connectivity (dFC) analysis represents a paradigm shift in functional neuroimaging, moving beyond traditional static models to capture the brain's time-varying network organization. This technical guide details how task-based functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) experiments, when integrated with dFC analytics, provide a powerful framework for elucidating the neural underpinnings of behavior and cognition. Within a data-driven exploratory approach to brain-behavior associations, dFC during task performance offers superior sensitivity for identifying subject-specific cognitive states, predicting individual behavioral traits, and uncovering transient network configurations that remain hidden to static analysis. This whitepaper provides a comprehensive technical overview for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, covering core principles, methodological protocols, key applications, and essential analytical tools required to implement this cutting-edge approach.

Traditional functional connectivity (FC) analysis in neuroimaging has predominantly assumed that correlations between brain region time-series are stationary throughout an entire fMRI scan, producing a static connectivity snapshot [40]. While this approach has successfully identified major resting-state networks and their alterations in disease, it fundamentally ignores the rich temporal dynamics of brain network interactions [41] [42]. The emerging field of dynamic functional connectivity (dFC) challenges this stationarity assumption, recognizing that functional networks reconfigure on timescales of seconds to minutes in response to cognitive demands and internal states [43] [40].

The integration of dFC with task-based fMRI is particularly powerful. While resting-state dFC captures intrinsic brain dynamics, task paradigms provide a structured experimental context to link specific dynamic connectivity states to particular cognitive processes and behavioral outputs [43]. This synergy enables researchers to move beyond mere observation of brain activity patterns to establishing causal relationships between network dynamics and behavior, a crucial advancement for developing targeted therapeutic interventions and robust biomarkers for drug development.

Technical Foundation: Core Concepts and Quantitative Metrics

Defining Dynamic Functional Connectivity

Dynamic functional connectivity refers to the observed phenomenon that functional connectivity changes over short time periods, typically seconds to minutes, during both rest and task performance [40]. These fluctuations are not noise but represent meaningful transitions between different brain states that embody specific cognitive architectures [43].

How dFC Complements and Differs from Static FC

Static FC provides a time-averaged summary of brain network interactions, whereas dFC captures the temporal evolution and variability of these interactions. This distinction is critical because the brain's FC does reconfigure in systematic ways to accommodate task demands, a process obscured by averaging in static analyses [43]. Research demonstrates that dFC can identify behaviorally relevant network dynamics that static FC fails to detect [41] [42].

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Static vs. Dynamic Functional Connectivity Approaches

Feature	Static FC (sFC)	Dynamic FC (dFC)
Temporal Assumption	Stationarity throughout scan	Non-stationarity, evolves over time
Primary Output	Single correlation matrix per subject	Time-series of correlation matrices
Information Captured	Average connection strength	Temporal variability, states, and transitions
Sensitivity to Task Demands	Shows net differences between conditions	Reveals moment-to-moment reconfiguration
Relationship to Behavior	Correlates with average performance	Predicts trial-by-trial fluctuations [43]
Common Metrics	Pearson correlation, partial correlation	Sliding window correlation variance, state metrics [42]

Key dFC Metrics and Their Neurobiological Interpretation

dFC analysis generates distinct quantitative metrics that capture different aspects of temporal variability in brain networks:

• Temporal Variability (Edge-Based): Measures the standard deviation or variance of connection strength over time. Lower variability in executive-control and visual networks predicts better sustained attention performance [42] [44].
• State Dynamics (State-Based): Characterizes recurring FC patterns, including:
  • Fractional Occupancy: Time proportion spent in each state
  • Dwell Time: Duration of consecutive state visits
  • Transition Probabilities: Likelihood of switching between states [42] [45]
• Trend Consistency: Measures covariation of dFC time-courses across connections, with resting-state dFC showing more consistent trends than task-state dFC in visual cortex [46].

Methodological Framework: Experimental Protocols and Analytical Workflows

Core Experimental Design Considerations

Effective dFC task paradigms should:

• Incorporate Blocked or Event-Related Designs: These naturally create changing cognitive demands that drive connectivity dynamics [43].
• Include Sufficient Trial Repetition: Enables assessment of trial-by-trial variability in connectivity preceding behavior [43].
• Control for Head Motion: Implement rigorous motion tracking and correction protocols, as motion systematically alters FC estimates, particularly threatening dFC studies [47].
• Balance Task Complexity: Sufficiently engaging tasks to perturb network dynamics without overwhelming cognitive capacity.

The Sliding Window Correlation Algorithm

The most prevalent dFC method involves calculating correlation matrices within a temporal window that slides across the fMRI time-series [42] [40].

Critical Parameters for Sliding Window Analysis:

• Window Length: Typically 30-100 seconds (TRs); shorter windows capture faster dynamics but increase estimation noise [41]. Studies suggest 30-60 seconds optimally represents the signal's dynamic nature [41].
• Window Overlap: Commonly 50-90%; greater overlap produces smoother temporal trajectories but increases computational load [48].
• Window Shape: Rectangular or tapered (e.g., Gaussian) to reduce edge effects [41].

Advanced dFC Estimation Protocol

Kudela et al.'s bootstrap-based approach combined with semiparametric mixed models offers a robust statistical framework for task-based dFC [41]:

Step 1: Subject-Level dFC Estimation

• Apply multivariate linear process bootstrap to address fMRI noise structure
• Implement sliding window correlation on bootstrap-resampled data
• Generate subject-specific dFC estimates with confidence intervals

Step 2: Group-Level Analysis

• Treat subject-specific dFC estimates as outcomes in semiparametric additive mixed models
• Combine information across subjects and scans
• Account for complex correlation structures, experimental design, and subject-specific variability
• Yield group-level dFC estimates for each condition and their differences [41]

Table 2: Experimental Parameters from Seminal dFC Studies

Study & Application	Window Length (seconds)	Step Size (seconds)	Primary dFC Metric	Key Finding
Gustatory Task [41]	Not specified	Not specified	Proportion of time associations were significantly positive/negative	Beer flavor enhanced right VST-vAIC connectivity, undetected by static FC
Visual Attention [42]	10-60	Not specified	Variance of edge strength across windows	Lower FC variability predicted better attention performance
Visual Cortex Analysis [46]	50	1	Changing trend consistency of dFC/dEC vectors	Task state decreased dFC consistency but increased dEC consistency compared to rest
Subject Identification [48]	61.2 (3T), 60 (7T)	3.6 (3T), 5 (7T)	Clustered states (k-means)	Static partial correlation outperformed dFC for subject identification

Validation and Statistical Considerations

• Address Motion Artifacts: Implement rigorous denoising pipelines (e.g., ABCD-BIDS) and consider frame censoring (e.g., FD < 0.2 mm) to reduce spurious findings [47].
• Statistical Testing: Utilize permutation-based approaches or confidence intervals from bootstrap methods to distinguish true dynamics from noise [41] [47].
• Multimodal Validation: Correlate dFC findings with simultaneously acquired electrophysiology (EEG/MEG) where possible to establish neuronal basis [40].

Applications in Brain-Behavior Research and Drug Development

Predicting Individual Differences in Behavior

dFC during both task and rest successfully predicts individual differences in sustained attention across independent datasets [42] [44]. The predictive models utilize temporal variability of edge strength as features, with reduced variability in visual, motor, and executive-control networks predicting superior attentional performance [42].

Identifying Task-Induced Cognitive States

Moment-to-moment FC computed during task epochs can predict the specific cognitive processes taking place [43]. Task performance systematically alters network configurations through:

• Within-Network Decreases: Reduced connectivity within primary sensory networks (visual, auditory, somatosensory) during engaged task performance [43].
• Across-Network Increases: Enhanced connectivity between task-relevant networks (e.g., dorsal attention network and visual network during visual attention) [43].

Clinical Translation and Biomarker Development

dFC offers considerable promise as a translational tool for neurological and psychiatric disorders:

• Schizophrenia: Patients spend more time in less connected states [42] [40].
• Addiction Research: Conditioned reward stimuli (e.g., beer flavor) potentiate connectivity within reward circuitry (ventral striatum, orbitofrontal cortex, anterior insula) [41].
• Enhanced Sensitivity: dFC can uncover associations undetected by traditional static FC analysis, potentially offering more sensitive biomarkers for treatment response [41].

Implementation Guide: The Scientist's Toolkit

Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Table 3: Essential Resources for dFC Research

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Methods	Function/Purpose
dFC Estimation	Sliding Window Correlation [42] [40]	Calculate time-varying connectivity between regions
	Bootstrap Methods [41]	Robust estimation of subject-level dFC with confidence intervals
	Time-Frequency Analysis [40]	Overcome window size limitations of sliding window approach
Statistical Modeling	Semiparametric Mixed Models [41]	Group-level dFC estimation accounting for complex experimental designs
	Partial Least Squares Regression [42]	Predictive modeling of behavior from dFC features
	K-means Clustering [45] [48]	Identify recurring connectivity states from windowed data
Data Processing	Deep Clustering Autoencoders [45]	Dimensionality reduction for improved state identification
	Framewise Displacement [47]	Quantify head motion for artifact mitigation
	SHAMAN Analysis [47]	Quantify motion impact on specific trait-FC relationships
Software Platforms	FSL, AFNI, SPM	Standard fMRI preprocessing and analysis
	MATLAB, Python	Custom implementation of dFC algorithms
	HCP Pipelines [48]	Reproducible processing of multimodal neuroimaging data

Protocol Implementation Checklist

• Preprocessing: Implement rigorous motion correction, denoising, and global signal regression
• Quality Control: Calculate framewise displacement and apply appropriate censoring thresholds
• Parameter Selection: Choose window length (30-60s recommended) and overlap (50-90%) based on research question
• Statistical Validation: Use bootstrap methods or permutation testing to confirm true dynamics
• Multiple Comparison Correction: Apply false discovery rate or cluster-based correction for edge-wise analyses
• Behavioral Correlation: Link dFC metrics to task performance and individual differences

The integration of task-based fMRI with dynamic functional connectivity represents a transformative approach in neuroscience research. As methodological refinements continue—including improved statistical validation, motion artifact mitigation, and multimodal integration—dFC is poised to become an increasingly powerful tool for elucidating brain-behavior relationships.

For drug development professionals, dFC offers particular promise for identifying sensitive biomarkers of circuit-level engagement and treatment response that might remain invisible to traditional static connectivity measures. The ability to capture moment-to-moment brain network reconfigurations in response to cognitive challenges or pharmacological interventions provides a dynamic window into brain function that more closely reflects the temporal dynamics of both cognitive processes and drug effects.

Future advancements will likely focus on real-time dFC analysis, integration with computational models of brain dynamics, and the development of standardized dFC biomarkers for clinical trials. As these technical capabilities mature, task-based dFC will play an increasingly central role in the data-driven exploration of brain-behavior associations, ultimately accelerating the development of novel therapeutics for neurological and psychiatric disorders.

Drug repurposing, defined as the application of approved drug compounds to new therapeutic indications, has emerged as a pivotal strategy for accelerating the development of treatments for dementia and psychiatric disorders [49]. This approach leverages existing safety, toxicology, and manufacturing knowledge, substantially reducing the traditional 13-year timeline and extensive financial investment required for novel drug development [50]. The urgent need for new therapies is particularly acute in Alzheimer's disease (AD), where the global prevalence is projected to increase from 57 million to 153 million by 2050, with disproportionate growth in low- and middle-income countries [50]. While newly licensed amyloid-targeting antibodies represent a therapeutic advance, they confer only modest benefits to a small patient population and require complex administration protocols [49].

Data-driven exploratory approaches that integrate brain-behavior associations are revolutionizing repurposing methodologies. These approaches leverage massive-scale genomic, transcriptomic, and neuroimaging datasets to identify novel therapeutic targets beyond canonical amyloid and tau pathology, including neuroinflammation, synaptic dysfunction, mitochondrial dysfunction, and neuroprotection pathways [49] [50]. The integration of multi-omics data with electronic health records and advanced computational analytics creates an powerful framework for identifying repurposing candidates with both mechanistic plausibility and favorable safety profiles for the neurologically vulnerable populations [50].

Data-driven repurposing relies on the integration of diverse, large-scale datasets to connect drug mechanisms with disease biology. The table below summarizes essential data resources for repurposing research in dementia and psychiatry.

Table 1: Key Data Resources for Drug Repurposing in Neuroscience

Resource Type	Resource Name	Primary Content/Function	Application in Repurposing
Genetic Databases	NIAGADS	122 datasets, 183,099 samples for AD genetics [50]	Identify genetic risk factors and potential drug targets
Multi-omics Platforms	Alzheimer's Disease Knowledge Portal	>100,000 data files from 80+ AD studies [50]	Therapeutic target discovery through multi-omics integration
Single-Cell Atlas	The Alzheimer's Cell Atlas (TACA)	1.1M+ single-cell/nucleus transcriptomes [50]	Cell-type-specific target identification
Systems Biology	AlzGPS	Multi-omics data for AD target identification [50]	Network-based drug target prioritization
Clinical Data	Electronic Health Records (EHR)	Patient treatment and outcome data [50]	Hypothesis testing for drug effects in real-world populations
Drug-Target Databases	ChEMBL, BindingDB, GtoPdb	Drug-target interaction data [51]	Compound profiling and therapeutic interpretation

Computational Repurposing Frameworks

Advanced computational frameworks form the backbone of modern repurposing pipelines. Network-based approaches integrate single-cell genomics data to construct cell-type-specific gene regulatory networks for psychiatric disorders, enabling the identification of druggable transcription factors that co-regulate known risk genes [52]. Graph neural networks applied to these modules can prioritize novel risk genes and identify drug molecules with potential for targeting specific cell types, as demonstrated by the recent identification of 220 repurposing candidates for psychiatric disorders [52].

Knowledge graph approaches represent another powerful methodology, using computational strategies to match disease nodes and networks to known drug nodes and networks to discover repurposing potential for AD and other neurodegenerative disorders [50]. These approaches systematically integrate population-scale genomic data with protein-protein interaction networks and drug databases to identify candidate therapies, as successfully applied in opioid use disorder research [53].

The following diagram illustrates a comprehensive computational workflow for target identification and validation:

Figure 1: Computational Workflow for Target Identification

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Delphi Consensus Methodology for Candidate Prioritization

Structured expert consensus methodologies provide a systematic framework for prioritizing repurposing candidates from numerous nominations. The Delphi consensus programme, successfully implemented in three iterations since 2012, follows a rigorous protocol [49]:

• Expert Panel Conformation: An international panel of academics, clinicians, and industry representatives with expertise in AD and related fields is convened. The most recent iteration included 21 experts from 28 invited respondents [49].

• Anonymous Drug Nomination: Panel members anonymously nominate drug candidates for consideration, resulting in 80 nominations in the latest round [49].

• Candidate Triage and Shortlisting: Nominated candidates are triaged to remove duplicates, agents already in phase 3 trials for AD, and structural analogues. Candidates receiving three or more nominations advance to systematic review [49].

• Systematic Evidence Review: Comprehensive systematic reviews are conducted using predefined queries across Medline, Cochrane, PsychINFO, and SCOPUS databases. Evidence is synthesized for: (i) putative mechanism of action in AD; (ii) therapeutic effects in vitro, in animal models, or humans; and (iii) safety profile, including blood-brain barrier penetration capability [49].

• Iterative Ranking and Consensus Building: Systematic reviews are circulated to the expert panel for ranking based on strength of evidence. Quantitative analysis of ranking metrics calculates median scores with a threshold of 1.75 standard deviation separation between candidates as a stop/go criterion for further consensus rounds [49].

• Stakeholder Consultation: A lay advisory group comprising individuals with lived experience of caring for someone with dementia reviews the shortlisted candidates through anonymous surveys and group discussions to assess patient acceptability, perceived benefits, and risks [49].

This methodology successfully identified three high-priority candidates in the latest iteration: the live attenuated herpes zoster vaccine (Zostavax), sildenafil (a PDE-5 inhibitor), and riluzole (a glutamate antagonist) [49].

Multi-Omic Data Integration Protocol

Systematic integration of multi-omic data follows a structured pipeline for target identification:

• Data Collection and Harmonization:

  • Gather genomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, and epigenomic data from repositories (NIAGADS, AD Knowledge Portal, TACA)
  • Harmonize data using standardized preprocessing pipelines and quality control metrics
  • Annotate with relevant clinical and phenotypic metadata

• Network Construction and Analysis:

  • Generate protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks from GWAS risk loci
  • Identify enriched PPI subnetworks using statistical approaches (hypergeometric testing)
  • Construct cell-type-specific gene regulatory networks from single-cell RNA sequencing data

• Cross-Omic Validation:

  • Implement statistical frameworks to identify genes with consistent evidence across omic domains (genomics, transcriptomics)
  • Apply false discovery rate (FDR) correction (typically q < 0.05) to identify significant targets
  • Use Mendelian randomization to infer causal relationships

• Drug Target Mapping:

  • Query drug databases (Pharos, Open Targets, TTD, DrugBank) for clinical status and target selectivity
  • Filter compounds based on target engagement, blood-brain barrier penetration, and safety profiles
  • Prioritize candidates with multi-modal evidence support

This protocol enabled the identification of 70 genes in 22 enriched PPI networks for opioid use disorder, leading to the discovery of 2-329 approved drugs with repurposing potential after specificity filtering [53].

Key Repurposing Candidates and Evidence

Prioritized Candidates for Alzheimer's Disease

Recent systematic evaluations have identified several promising repurposing candidates for AD. The following table summarizes the highest-priority candidates identified through the Delphi consensus process and supporting evidence.

Table 2: High-Priority Repurposing Candidates for Alzheimer's Disease

Drug Candidate	Original Indication	Proposed Mechanism in AD	Evidence Level	Development Status
Live attenuated herpes zoster vaccine (Zostavax)	Herpes zoster prevention	Potential population-level dementia risk reduction; possible antiviral/anti-inflammatory effects [49]	Epidemiological studies, mechanistic plausibility [49]	Recommended for pragmatic trials [49]
Sildenafil	Erectile dysfunction	Phosphodiesterase-5 (PDE-5) inhibition; potential neurovascular and anti-inflammatory effects [49] [50]	EHR studies, mechanistic studies [49] [50]	Recommended for pragmatic trials [49]
Riluzole	Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis	Glutamate antagonism; reduction of excitotoxicity [49]	Preclinical models, mechanistic plausibility [49]	Recommended for pragmatic trials [49]
Bumetanide	Edema	Transcriptomic nomination for APOE4 carriers [50]	Transcriptomic studies, targeted mechanism [50]	Investigation in genetically-defined populations
Brexpiprazole	MDD, schizophrenia	Serotonin and dopamine modulation; approved for agitation in dementia [50]	Phase 3 trials [50]	Approved for agitation in AD-related dementia [50]
Semaglutide	Type 2 diabetes	GLP-1 agonism; potential metabolic and neuroprotective benefits [50]	Ongoing clinical trials [50]	In clinical trials for early AD [50]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Repurposing Studies

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Research Application
Genetic Databases	NIAGADS, ADSP, AMP-AD Knowledge Portal [50]	Genetic target identification and validation
Single-Cell Resources	The Alzheimer's Cell Atlas (TACA) [50]	Cell-type-specific target identification
Drug-Target Databases	ChEMBL, BindingDB, GtoPdb [51]	Drug-target interaction mapping
Multi-omic Integration Platforms	AlzGPS [50]	Systems biology and network analysis
Clinical Data Networks	OneFlorida+ Clinical Research Network [50]	Trial emulation and real-world evidence generation
Computational Tools	Graph Neural Networks [52]	Network-based candidate prioritization

Analytical Considerations in Brain-Behavior Research

Brain-behavior association studies provide critical insights for understanding drug effects but present substantial methodological challenges. Functional MRI data used to inform individual differences in cognitive, behavioral, and psychiatric phenotypes must address several key considerations [54]:

• Measurement Reliability: Both brain-derived metrics and cognitive/behavioral measures have upper reliability limits, and brain-behavior correlations that exceed these limits are likely spurious [54]. Increasing the reliability of both neural and psychological measurements optimizes detection of between-person effects.

• Head Motion Artifacts: In-scanner head motion introduces systematic bias to resting-state fMRI functional connectivity not completely removed by denoising algorithms [47]. Researchers studying traits associated with motion (e.g., psychiatric disorders) need specialized methods like SHAMAN (Split Half Analysis of Motion Associated Networks) to distinguish between motion causing overestimation or underestimation of trait-FC effects [47].

• Sample Size Requirements: Large population neuroscience datasets (ABCD, HCP, UK Biobank) reveal that thousands of subjects are needed to arrive at reproducible brain-behavioral phenotype associations using univariate analytic approaches [54]. Multivariate prediction algorithms can produce replicable results with smaller samples (as low as 100 subjects) but depend on effect size and analytic method [54].

The following diagram illustrates a recommended workflow for handling motion-related artifacts in fMRI studies:

Figure 2: Motion Artifact Management Workflow

Implementation and Future Directions

The translation of data-driven repurposing candidates into clinical applications requires addressing several implementation challenges. Generic repurposed agents lack intellectual property protection and are rarely advanced to late-stage trials for AD and neuropsychiatric disorders, creating a funding gap for pivotal clinical studies [50]. Pragmatic trial designs, including remote or hybrid designs, offer a cost-effective approach to evaluating repurposed candidates in real-world settings [49]. Platforms like the PROTECT network, which supports international cohorts in the UK, Norway, and Canada, provide established mechanisms for conducting such trials effectively [49].

Future advances will depend on enhanced data integration methodologies, including more sophisticated network medicine approaches that map the complex relationships between drug targets and disease networks across different biological scales [52]. The growing availability of single-cell multi-omics data will enable cell-type-specific repurposing strategies that account for the cellular heterogeneity of neurological and psychiatric disorders [52]. Additionally, the application of artificial intelligence and machine learning to multi-modal datasets will enhance pattern recognition and candidate prediction, potentially identifying repurposing opportunities not apparent through conventional approaches [50].

Legislative changes that create incentives for developing repurposed generic agents will be essential to fully realizing the potential of this approach [50]. Without such incentives, promising candidates identified through data-driven methodologies may never reach patients who could benefit from them. The integration of real-world evidence and clinical trial emulation approaches will further strengthen the repurposing pipeline by providing preliminary efficacy signals before investing in costly randomized controlled trials [50].

Navigating Pitfalls: Strategies to Mitigate Noise, Motion Artifacts, and Reliability Challenges

A fundamental goal of modern cognitive neuroscience is to unravel the complex relationships between brain organization and individual behavioral traits. This endeavor, often operationalized through brain-wide association studies (BWAS), holds immense promise for clinical applications, from diagnosing psychiatric disorders to predicting future cognitive performance [2]. However, this promise has been tempered by a pervasive challenge: the widespread failure of brain-behavior associations to replicate in independent samples. A primary culprit underlying this replicability crisis is measurement noise—random variability that creates a discrepancy between observed values and the true underlying biological or psychological traits of interest [55]. This noise, present in both neuroimaging and behavioral measures, attenuates observable effect sizes and fundamentally limits the upper bound of prediction accuracy [2] [55].

The brain-behavior research community has historically sought to overcome this challenge by increasing sample sizes, leading to the creation of large consortia datasets like the Human Connectome Project (HCP) and the UK Biobank [2]. While these efforts have been invaluable, they have also revealed a critical insight: even with thousands of participants, prediction accuracies for many clinically relevant behavioral phenotypes, such as inhibitory control, remain dishearteningly low [2] [55]. This suggests that sample size alone is an incomplete solution. A paradigm shift is underway, complementing large-N studies with "precision approaches" that prioritize deep, extensive data collection from fewer individuals [2]. This technical guide explores how extended behavioral and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) sampling conquers measurement noise, thereby enhancing the signal essential for robust and reproducible brain-behavior associations.

The Nature and Impact of Measurement Noise

Defining Noise in Neuroimaging and Behavioral Data

In the context of BWAS, noise can be broadly categorized into two types:

• Physiological Noise: This encompasses signal changes caused by the subject's physiology that are not related to neuronal activity of interest. Major sources include:

  • Cardiac and Respiratory Cycles: These induce changes in cerebral blood flow, blood volume, arterial pulsatility, and cerebrospinal fluid flow. They can also cause changes in the main magnetic field (B0), particularly problematic in brainstem imaging [56].
  • Subject Motion: Head movement introduces spatially variable spin-history effects that can persist after standard realignment procedures [57].
  • Thermal Noise: An ever-present source generated by thermal fluctuations within the subject and receiver electronics [56].

• Behavioral Measurement Noise: This refers to the unreliability of phenotypic assessments. It arises from high trial-level variability in cognitive tasks, state-dependent factors (e.g., motivation, alertness), and limitations of task designs not optimized for individual differences research [2] [55]. Test-retest reliability, quantified by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), is the standard metric, where ICC is the ratio of between-subject variance to total variance (between-subject + within-subject + error variances) [55].

Quantifying the Impact of Noise on Prediction Accuracy

The detrimental effect of measurement noise is not merely theoretical; it systematically and dramatically reduces the accuracy of brain-behavior predictions. Research demonstrates that low phenotypic reliability establishes a low upper bound for prediction performance, regardless of the strength of the underlying biological association [55].

Table 1: Impact of Phenotypic Reliability on Prediction Accuracy (Simulation Data)

Simulated Reliability (ICC)	Total Cognition (R²)	Crystallized Cognition (R²)	Grip Strength (R²)
0.9	0.23	0.22	0.19
0.8	0.19	0.18	0.16
0.7	0.16	0.14	0.13
0.6	0.12	0.10	0.10
0.5	0.08	0.07	0.07

Source: Adapted from [55]. Note: R² represents the out-of-sample prediction accuracy.

As shown in Table 1, for measures like total cognition, prediction accuracy (R²) can be halved when reliability drops from 0.9 to 0.6 [55]. This attenuation effect is further corroborated by empirical data from large datasets. For instance, in the HCP Young Adult dataset, the test-retest reliability of 36 behavioral assessments (median ICC = 0.63) showed a substantial correlation of r = 0.62 with their prediction accuracy from functional connectivity [55].

The Precision Solution: Extended Sampling to Improve Signal-to-Noise

The Principle of Precision Neuroscience

Precision neuroscience, also referred to as "deep," "dense," or "high-sampling" design, is a class of methods that collect extensive per-participant data. This often occurs across multiple contexts and days, with careful attention in analysis to alignment, bias, and sources of variability [2]. The core premise is that by minimizing measurement noise and maximizing valid signal, precision approaches enhance the reliability and validity of individual participant measures, which in turn boosts the statistical power for detecting brain-behavior associations [2].

Extended Behavioral Sampling

Many standard cognitive tasks used in large-scale studies are notoriously unreliable. For example, performance on the flanker task (a measure of inhibitory control) shows one of the lowest prediction accuracies from brain features in the HCP data [2]. This poor performance is largely attributable to measurement error, as inhibitory control measures often exhibit high trial-level variability, resulting in noisy estimates when based on only a few trials (e.g., 40 trials in the HCP data) [2].

Key Evidence: A landmark precision behavioral study investigated this by collecting over 5,000 trials for each participant across four different inhibitory control paradigms over 36 testing days [2]. The results demonstrated that:

• With short testing durations, individual-level estimates of inhibitory control are highly variable and unreliable.
• Insufficient per-participant data inflates estimates of between-subject variability because high within-subject variability is misinterpreted as stable individual differences.
• This inflated between-subject variability subsequently attenuates the correlation between behavioral and brain measures [2].

Extending task duration from just a few minutes to over 60 minutes has been shown to significantly improve the predictive power of brain features for cognitive abilities like fluid intelligence [2] [55].

Extended fMRI Sampling

Similarly, the reliability of functional brain measures is directly tied to data quantity. The BOLD signal is inherently noisy, with neural activity representing only a small fraction of total signal fluctuation [57].

Key Evidence:

• Research indicates that for reliable individual-level estimates of functional connectivity, more than 20-30 minutes of fMRI data is required [2]. Consortium datasets often fall short of this threshold per individual.
• The sampling rate (TR) also critically impacts data quality. While conventional connectivity metrics (e.g., seed-based FC, ICA) may appear stable across different TRs, faster sampling (shorter TR) is crucial for advanced analyses. For instance, a TR of 0.1 s, as used in magnetic resonance encephalography (MREG), allows for critical sampling of cardiorespiratory pulsations (~1 Hz and ~0.3 Hz), separating them from very low frequency (VLF) quasi-periodic patterns and reducing aliasing artifacts that can contaminate the signal of interest in longer TR acquisitions [58].
• Data-driven scrubbing methods, such as "projection scrubbing" based on independent component analysis (ICA), offer a superior balance of noise removal and data retention compared to stringent motion scrubbing, which can exclude a excessive number of volumes and subjects, potentially introducing bias [57].

Table 2: Impact of Extended Sampling on Key Data Modalities

Data Modality	Typical Small-Sample Study	Precision Approach	Impact on Signal-to-Noise
Behavioral Task	Short duration (e.g., 5 min)	Extended duration (e.g., 60+ min); 1000s of trials	Increases reliability of individual phenotypic estimates; reduces within-subject variability inflating between-subject effects.
fMRI (Duration)	10-15 min resting-state	20-30+ min resting-state per individual	Improves reliability of functional connectivity matrices for individual fingerprinting.
fMRI (Sampling Rate)	Long TR (e.g., 2-3 s)	Short TR (e.g., 0.1-0.5 s)	Reduces aliasing of physiological noise; enables detection of novel, rapid physiological phenomena [58].

Experimental Protocols for Precision Research

Protocol for a High-Sampling Behavioral Study

This protocol is designed to achieve highly reliable individual differences in inhibitory control [2].

• Objective: To obtain precise and reliable estimates of inhibitory control for brain-behavior prediction studies.
• Task Selection: Employ well-established paradigms such as the flanker and Stroop tasks.
• Procedure:
  • Conduct multiple testing sessions per participant (e.g., 36 sessions).
  • In each session, present a large number of trials per task (e.g., >150 trials).
  • Space sessions across different days and times to sample across varying psychological states.
  • The ultimate goal is to collect a very high number of total trials per participant (e.g., >5,000 trials across all tasks) [2].
• Data Analysis:
  • Aggregate performance data (e.g., reaction time, accuracy) across all sessions for each participant.
  • Calculate per-participant summary statistics (e.g., mean congruency effect score).
  • Assess the reliability of these estimates using intraclass correlation (ICC) or split-half reliability.
  • Use these aggregate, high-reliability scores in subsequent brain-behavior predictive modeling.

Protocol for a Dense-Sampling fMRI Study

This protocol outlines the acquisition of high-quality, high-temporal-resolution fMRI data for robust functional connectivity mapping at the individual level.

• Objective: To acquire fMRI data with sufficient quantity and quality to reliably map individual-specific functional brain networks.
• Scanning Parameters:
  • Sequence: Use a sequence optimized for high temporal resolution, such as 3D single-shot MREG or multi-band EPI.
  • Repetition Time (TR): Aim for a short TR (e.g., 0.1 s for MREG or < 1 s for multi-band EPI) to critically sample physiological noise and reduce aliasing [58].
  • Scan Duration: Acquire at least 20-30 minutes of resting-state fMRI data per participant, split across multiple runs if necessary to mitigate participant fatigue [2].
  • Physiological Monitoring: Record cardiac and respiratory cycles simultaneously using a pulse oximeter and respiratory belt [56].
• Preprocessing and Denoising:
  • Apply standard preprocessing (realignment, normalization, etc.).
  • Implement a comprehensive denoising pipeline. This should include:
    • Physiological Noise Correction: Use methods like RETROICOR or volume-based models (e.g., aCompCor) to regress out signals derived from cardiac and respiratory recordings [56] [57].
    • Data-Driven Scrubbing: Employ methods like projection scrubbing or DVARS to identify and remove volumes contaminated by burst noise, preserving more data than aggressive motion scrubbing [57].
    • Global Signal Regression: Consider its use, weighing its noise-reduction benefits against potential controversies regarding induced anti-correlations [57].
• Functional Connectivity Mapping:
  • Move beyond default Pearson's correlation. Explore alternative pairwise statistics that may be more sensitive to individual differences, such as precision (inverse covariance), which has been shown to improve correspondence with structural connectivity and enhance brain-behavior prediction [59].

Figure 1: The Precision Workflow. The pathway from noisy, unreliable data to robust prediction relies on extended sampling across modalities and advanced processing.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Resources for Precision Brain-Behavior Research

Resource / Tool	Function / Description	Key Application / Benefit
High-Temporal-Res fMRI Sequences	MRI acquisition sequences like MREG [58] or multi-band EPI that enable very short repetition times (TR < 1 s).	Critically samples physiological noise; enables detection of rapid brain dynamics; reduces aliasing.
Physiological Monitoring Equipment	MRI-compatible pulse oximeter and respiratory belt for recording cardiac and respiratory cycles during scanning [56].	Provides necessary data for modeling and removing physiological noise (e.g., via RETROICOR).
Large-Scale, Annotated Stimulus Sets	Curated image databases like the THINGS database [60], containing thousands of naturalistic object images with rich annotations.	Enables comprehensive, hypothesis-agnostic sampling of neural representations; reduces stimulus selection bias.
Alternative FC Metrics	Pairwise interaction statistics beyond Pearson correlation, such as precision (inverse covariance) and distance correlation, available in toolkites like PySPI [59].	Can provide better structure-function coupling, individual fingerprinting, and brain-behavior prediction.
Data-Driven Scrubbing Algorithms	Methods like Projection Scrubbing [57] and DVARS that identify contaminated fMRI volumes based on the data itself.	More effectively balances noise removal with data retention compared to motion-based scrubbing, preserving sample size.
Test-Retest Reliability Software	Scripts or packages for calculating Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) for both behavioral and neuroimaging measures [55].	Quantifies measurement reliability, allowing researchers to identify and improve noisy measures before costly predictive modeling.

The quest for meaningful and replicable brain-behavior associations is fundamentally a battle against noise. While large-scale consortia have been rightfully emphasized to achieve adequate statistical power, the findings from precision neuroscience make it unequivocally clear that data quantity at the individual level is as critical as sample size across individuals. The systematic attenuation of prediction accuracy by unreliable measurements presents a formidable barrier to progress, particularly for clinically relevant phenotypes that are inherently noisy [2] [55].

The path forward requires a deliberate and synergistic integration of both "big" and "deep" data approaches. Large-scale studies must place greater emphasis on the psychometric properties of their behavioral assays and invest in longer scanning durations to enhance individual-level reliability. Concurrently, precision designs provide a powerful framework for maximizing signal-to-noise, validating experimental tasks, and developing advanced analytical models that can later be applied to larger datasets [2]. By conquering measurement noise through extended behavioral and fMRI sampling, the field can finally unlock the full potential of data-driven exploratory approaches to illuminate the intricate links between brain and behavior.

In-scanner head motion is the largest source of artifact in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) signals, introducing systematic bias to resting-state functional connectivity (FC) that is not completely removed by standard denoising algorithms [47]. This technical challenge is particularly problematic for researchers studying traits associated with motion, such as psychiatric disorders, where failure to account for residual motion can lead to false positive results [47]. The effect of motion on FC has been shown to be spatially systematic, causing decreased long-distance connectivity and increased short-range connectivity, most notably in the default mode network [47]. Early studies of children, older adults, and patients with neurological or psychiatric disorders have been spuriously related to motion, exemplified by research that mistakenly concluded autism decreases long-distance FC when the results were actually due to increased head motion in autistic study participants [47].

The complexity of motion artifact is compounded in large-scale brain-wide association studies (BWAS) involving thousands of participants (e.g., HCP, ABCD, UK Biobank), where there exists a natural tension between the need to remove motion-contaminated data to reduce spurious findings and the risk of biasing sample distributions by systematically excluding individuals with high motion who may exhibit important variance in the trait of interest [47]. This challenge is especially acute when studying participants with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder or autism, who typically have higher in-scanner head motion than neurotypical participants [47].

The SHAMAN Framework: Principles and Methodology

Conceptual Foundation

The Split Half Analysis of Motion Associated Networks (SHAMAN) framework was developed to address the critical need for methods that quantify trait-specific motion artifact in functional connectivity [47]. SHAMAN capitalizes on a fundamental observation: traits (e.g., weight, intelligence) are stable over the timescale of an MRI scan, whereas motion is a state that varies from second to second [47]. This temporal dissociation provides the theoretical basis for distinguishing true trait-FC relationships from those spuriously influenced by motion artifact.

The method operates by measuring differences in correlation structure between split high- and low-motion halves of each participant's fMRI timeseries. When trait-FC effects are independent of motion, the difference between halves will be non-significant because traits remain stable over time. A significant difference indicates that state-dependent motion variations impact the trait's connectivity patterns [47].

Analytical Procedure

SHAMAN implements a sophisticated analytical workflow that can be adapted to model covariates and operates on one or more resting-state fMRI scans per participant. The core procedure involves:

• Timeseries Splitting: Each participant's fMRI data is divided into high-motion and low-motion halves based on framewise displacement (FD) metrics.
• Connectivity Calculation: Functional connectivity matrices are computed separately for high-motion and low-motion segments.
• Trait-FC Effect Estimation: The relationship between the trait of interest and FC is quantified for both motion conditions.
• Motion Impact Scoring: Permutation of the timeseries and non-parametric combining across pairwise connections yields a motion impact score with an associated p-value [47].

A key innovation of SHAMAN is its ability to distinguish directionality of motion effects. A motion impact score aligned with the trait-FC effect direction indicates motion causing overestimation, while a score opposite the trait-FC effect indicates motion causing underestimation [47].

Implementation and Validation

SHAMAN was rigorously validated using data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study, which collected up to 20 minutes of resting-state fMRI data on 11,874 children ages 9-10 years with extensive demographic, biophysical, and behavioral data [47]. The method was applied to assess 45 traits from n = 7,270 participants after standard denoising with the ABCD-BIDS pipeline, which includes global signal regression, respiratory filtering, spectral filtering, despiking, and motion parameter timeseries regression [47].

Supplementary analyses were also performed on the Human Connectome Project to demonstrate the generalizability of results across different denoising methods and datasets [47]. This validation approach ensures that SHAMAN's utility extends beyond a single processing pipeline or participant population.

Quantitative Evidence: Motion Effects in Large-Sample Research

Efficacy of Denoising and Residual Motion

Preliminary analyses quantified how much residual motion remained in data after standard denoising processing. After minimal processing (motion-correction by frame realignment only), 73% of signal variance was explained by head motion. After comprehensive denoising using ABCD-BIDS, this was reduced to 23% of signal variance explained by motion, representing a relative reduction of 69% compared to minimal processing alone [47].

Despite this improvement, substantial motion-related effects persisted. The motion-FC effect matrix showed a strong, negative correlation (Spearman ρ = -0.58) with the average FC matrix, indicating that connection strength tended to be weaker in participants who moved more. This strong negative correlation persisted even after motion censoring at FD < 0.2 mm (Spearman ρ = -0.51) [47].

Table 1: Motion Impact on Traits in ABCD Study Data (n=7,270)

Analysis Condition	Traits with Significant Motion Overestimation	Traits with Significant Motion Underestimation
After ABCD-BIDS Denoising (No Censoring)	42% (19/45 traits)	38% (17/45 traits)
After Censoring (FD < 0.2 mm)	2% (1/45 traits)	38% (17/45 traits)

Table 2: Effect of Denoising on Motion-Related Variance

Processing Stage	Signal Variance Explained by Motion	Relative Reduction
Minimal Processing (Motion Correction Only)	73%	Baseline
ABCD-BIDS Denoising Pipeline	23%	69%

Comparative Performance of Motion Correction Strategies

The SHAMAN framework enabled systematic evaluation of different motion correction strategies. Censoring at framewise displacement (FD) < 0.2 mm proved highly effective for reducing motion overestimation, cutting significant overestimation from 42% to just 2% of traits [47]. However, this approach did not decrease the number of traits with significant motion underestimation scores, which remained at 38% [47].

Notably, the largest motion-FC effect sizes for individual connections were substantially larger than effect sizes related to traits of interest, highlighting the critical importance of adequate motion correction in brain-behavior association studies [47].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential Research Materials for Motion-Aware Neuroimaging

Research Reagent	Function/Purpose	Implementation Notes
Framewise Displacement (FD)	Quantifies head motion between volumes; critical for identifying high-motion timepoints	Computed from rigid-body head realignment parameters; typically thresholded at 0.2-0.3mm [47]
ABCD-BIDS Pipeline	Integrated denoising approach for resting-state fMRI	Combines global signal regression, respiratory filtering, spectral filtering, despiking, and motion parameter regression [47]
SHAMAN Algorithm	Quantifies trait-specific motion impact	Distinguishes overestimation vs. underestimation; provides statistical significance testing [47]
High-Performance Computing Infrastructure	Enables processing of large datasets (e.g., ABCD, UK Biobank)	Essential for permutation testing and processing thousands of participants [47]
Multimodal Data Integration Platforms	Incorporates demographic, clinical, and cognitive measures	Critical for comprehensive trait assessment in large-scale studies [2]

Integration with Data-Driven Exploratory Approaches

Precision Neuroscience Frameworks

The SHAMAN method aligns with emerging "precision" approaches in neuroscience that collect extensive per-participant data across multiple contexts to enhance the reliability and validity of individual participant measures [2]. These approaches address fundamental limitations in brain-behavior prediction by recognizing that insufficient data per individual makes it difficult to accurately characterize individuals, particularly for variables with high measurement noise [2].

Precision designs are particularly valuable for studying cognitive functions like inhibitory control, which exhibit high trial-level variability and consequently show poor prediction performance in standard BWAS [2]. Research has demonstrated that individual-level estimates of inhibitory control vary widely with short amounts of testing, but this variability can be mitigated by collecting more extensive data from each participant [2].

Data-Driven Ontological Frameworks

Recent data-driven approaches have challenged conventional categorizations of brain function. One analysis of 18,000 fMRI studies using natural language processing and machine learning found that data-driven functional domains differed substantially from theoretically-derived frameworks like the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) [12]. Specifically, while RDoC includes distinct domains for emotional processing, the data-driven analysis identified six domains—memory, reward, cognition, vision, manipulation, and language—none of which specifically related to emotion as a separate category [12].

This ontological refinement has significant implications for motion correction methodology. As Beam et al. note, "If the goal is to develop biologically based treatments for mental health problems, we need to start by better characterizing how circuits are functioning in individuals rather than focusing on what their symptoms are" [12]. The SHAMAN framework supports this precision approach by enabling researchers to determine whether apparent trait-circuit relationships reflect genuine biological associations or motion-related artifacts.

Latent Variable Approaches

Complementary work has employed latent variable approaches with bifactor analysis to validate and refine the RDoC framework. This research demonstrated that a bifactor model incorporating a task-general domain and splitting the cognitive systems domain better fits task-based fMRI data than the current RDoC framework [13]. These findings align with SHAMAN's recognition that motion impacts trait-FC relationships in domain-specific ways that require sophisticated modeling to accurately characterize.

Advanced Methodological Considerations

Reliability and Measurement Precision

A critical insight from precision neuroscience is that the amount of data collected from each participant is equally crucial as the number of participants [2]. For individual-level precision, more than 20-30 minutes of fMRI data is required, and extending cognitive task duration (e.g., from five minutes to 60 minutes for fluid intelligence tests) can improve predictive accuracy [2].

Without sufficient testing, individual-level measures contain substantial measurement errors that affect estimates of both within- and between-subject variability. This noise fundamentally distorts BWAS efforts by attenuating correlations between measures and diminishing prediction accuracy of machine learning algorithms [2].

Robust Statistical Techniques

The field has increasingly recognized the limitations of Pearson correlation for studying brain-behavior associations due to its sensitivity to outliers [61]. Robust alternatives include Spearman correlation (less sensitive to univariate outliers) and skipped correlations (which involve multivariate outlier detection) [61]. Adoption of these more robust techniques is essential for accurate characterization of brain-behavior relationships independent of motion effects.

Future Directions and Clinical Implications

The integration of motion-aware methods like SHAMAN with precision approaches and large-scale consortia represents a promising direction for the field. Consortium datasets provide population-level generalizability, while precision designs enable reliable individual-level characterization—together potentially boosting prediction accuracy for clinically relevant variables [2].

For translational applications, particularly in drug development, accurate characterization of brain-behavior relationships is essential for identifying valid biomarkers and treatment targets. The SHAMAN framework provides a critical methodology for ensuring that reported associations reflect genuine neurobiological relationships rather than motion-induced artifacts, thereby supporting the development of more effective biologically-based treatments for psychiatric disorders.

As the field advances, continued refinement of motion correction methods—particularly for addressing motion underestimation effects that persist despite censoring—will be essential for realizing the potential of fMRI in clinical research and therapeutic development.

In the pursuit of robust brain-behavior associations, the reliability of neural and behavioral measures emerges as a fundamental prerequisite. This technical review synthesizes mounting empirical evidence demonstrating that data quality—specifically, fMRI scan duration and cognitive task design—profoundly influences measurement reliability and, consequently, the validity of scientific inferences in individual-differences research. We present a systematic analysis of the scan duration-reliability relationship across multiple large-scale neuroimaging datasets, revealing consistent logarithmic gains in prediction accuracy with extended acquisition times. Concurrently, we examine the "reliability paradox" in cognitive task measures, wherein standard paradigms optimized for detecting group-level effects often fail to capture stable individual differences. Through integrated methodological frameworks and empirical benchmarks, this review provides concrete guidance for enhancing measurement fidelity in brain-wide association studies, advocating for a paradigm shift from mere sample size expansion to optimized data quality per participant.

The growing interest in individual differences research faces significant challenges in light of recent replication difficulties across psychology and neuroscience. A crucial component of replicability for individual differences studies, often assumed but not directly tested, is the reliability of the measures we use [62]. For neuroimaging data, poor reliability drastically reduces effect sizes and statistical power for detecting brain-behavior associations [63]. Similarly, in cognitive task research, many behavioral measures exhibit lower reliability than conventionally acceptable levels for individual-differences research [64].

This review addresses two fundamental aspects of the reliability challenge in brain-behavior research. First, we examine the critical relationship between fMRI scan duration and the reliability of functional connectivity measures and phenotypic predictions. Second, we analyze how cognitive task design influences the psychometric properties of behavioral measures. When properly designed, cognitive tasks can isolate and measure specific cognitive processes, providing crucial insights into the cognitive processes underlying psychiatric phenomena [64]. However, the tendency in biological psychiatry to adopt the most prominent tasks in experimental psychology—ones that most reliably demonstrate behavioral effects—may actually hamper efforts to study individual differences due to a fundamental mismatch in goals between experimental and individual-differences psychological research [64].

The Scan Duration-Reliability Relationship in fMRI

Empirical Evidence for Extended Scan Durations

A pervasive dilemma in brain-wide association studies (BWAS) is whether to prioritize functional MRI (fMRI) scan time or sample size. Recent research has derived a theoretical model showing that individual-level phenotypic prediction accuracy increases with sample size and total scan duration (sample size × scan time per participant) [65]. This model explains empirical prediction accuracies extremely well across 76 phenotypes from nine resting-fMRI and task-fMRI datasets (R² = 0.89), spanning diverse scanners, acquisitions, racial groups, disorders, and ages [65] [66].

Table 1: Empirical Effects of Scan Duration on Reliability and Prediction Accuracy

Scan Duration	Reliability Type	Key Findings	Source
3-5 minutes	Intersession reliability	Basic functional connectivity patterns detectable but limited individual differentiation	[67]
9-12 minutes	Intersession reliability	Substantial improvements in reliability; gains begin to diminish beyond this range	[67]
12-16 minutes	Intrasession reliability	Plateaus in reliability improvements observed	[67]
20+ minutes	Phenotypic prediction	Minimum threshold for cost-efficient brain-wide association studies	[65]
30 minutes	Phenotypic prediction	Most cost-effective duration, yielding 22% savings over 10-minute scans	[65] [66]

The relationship between scan length and reliability follows a characteristic pattern of diminishing returns. For scans of ≤20 minutes, accuracy increases linearly with the logarithm of the total scan duration, suggesting that sample size and scan time are initially interchangeable [65]. However, sample size is ultimately more important than scan time in determining prediction accuracy. Nevertheless, when accounting for overhead costs associated with each participant (e.g., recruitment costs), longer scans can yield substantial cost savings over larger sample sizes for boosting prediction accuracy [65].

Experimental Protocols for Scan Duration Optimization

The foundational methodology for establishing scan duration-reliability relationships typically involves acquiring extended resting-state fMRI scans (often 30+ minutes) and systematically evaluating data quality and prediction accuracy across truncated segments of the full dataset [67] [65]. The following protocol outlines this approach:

Protocol 1: Assessing Reliability Across Scan Durations

• Data Acquisition: Acquire extended resting-state fMRI scans (e.g., 27-30 minutes) using standardized parameters (e.g., TR=2.6s, TE=25ms, flip angle=60°, 3.5mm isotropic voxels) [67].

• Data Preprocessing: Implement comprehensive preprocessing pipelines including:

  • Motion correction (using AFNI's rigid-body volume registration)
  • Physiological noise correction (e.g., RETROICOR for cardiac and respiratory pulsations)
  • Nuisance regression (WM, CSF signals and their derivatives, motion parameters)
  • Temporal band-pass filtering (0.01-0.1 Hz)
  • Spatial smoothing (FWHM=4mm) [67]

• Time-Series Segmentation: Create truncated time series of varying lengths (e.g., 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27 minutes) from the full dataset [67].

• Functional Connectivity Calculation: For each scan length, compute connectivity matrices between predefined regions of interest (e.g., 18 regions across auditory, default mode, dorsal attention, motor, and visual networks) using correlation coefficients converted to Fisher's Z values [67].

• Reliability Assessment: Calculate both intrasession (same-day scans) and intersession (scans separated by months) reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients or similar metrics [67].

• Prediction Analysis: Apply machine learning models (e.g., kernel ridge regression) to predict phenotypes from functional connectivity matrices derived from different scan durations while systematically varying sample size [65].

Figure 1: Experimental workflow for establishing the scan duration-reliability relationship in fMRI studies.

Cognitive Task Design Principles for Reliable Individual Differences Measurement

The Reliability Paradox in Cognitive Tasks

Cognitive tasks hold great promise for biological psychiatry as they can isolate and measure specific cognitive processes. However, many recent studies have found that task measures exhibit poor reliability, which hampers their usefulness for individual-differences research [64]. This situation has been termed the "reliability paradox" - the observation that tasks that most reliably demonstrate behavioral effects at the group level often fail to capture stable individual differences [64].

In classical test theory, the variance in observed scores on a task measure is the sum of true score variance (reflecting real individual differences) and measurement error. The reliability of a measure is defined as the proportion of variance attributable to the true score variance relative to total variance [64]. This relationship places a critical constraint on observable brain-behavior correlations: the observed correlation between two measures is bounded by their individual reliabilities [64].

Strategies for Enhancing Cognitive Task Reliability

Table 2: Cognitive Task Optimization Strategies for Improved Reliability

Strategy	Mechanism	Implementation Example	Effect on Reliability
Avoiding ceiling/floor effects	Increases between-participant variance	Design tasks with varying difficulty levels; remove easiest trials	Improved from ρ = 0.75 to 0.88 in statistical learning tasks [64]
Increasing trial numbers	Reduces measurement error	Use permutation-based split-halves analysis to determine optimal trial counts	Enables convergence to stable performance estimates [62]
Multiple testing sessions	Accounts for state fluctuations	Collect data over multiple days with alternate task forms	Improves trait-like stability measurement [62]
Context-appropriate parameterization	Enhances construct validity	Adjust task parameters for specific populations (e.g., children, clinical groups)	Prevents range restriction effects [64]
Computational modeling optimization	Improves parameter interpretability	Test parameter generalizability across different task contexts	Enhances cross-study comparability [68]

Protocol 2: Evaluating and Optimizing Cognitive Task Reliability

• Task Design Phase:

  • Implement multiple difficulty levels to avoid ceiling/floor effects
  • Create alternate forms to enable repeated testing without practice effects
  • Pilot test in target population to ensure appropriate difficulty range [64]

• Data Collection Phase:

  • Administer multiple task forms across different sessions (days/weeks)
  • Collect sufficient trials for reliability convergence (typically 50+ trials per condition)
  • Include attention checks and performance quality metrics [62]

• Reliability Assessment Phase:

  • Perform permutation-based split-halves analysis
  • Calculate test-retest reliability across sessions
  • Plot reliability as a function of trial number to assess convergence [62]

• Optimization Phase:

  • Use analytical models to predict number of trials needed for target reliability
  • Apply convergence coefficient (C) to compare tasks across cognitive domains
  • Adjust task parameters based on reliability performance [62]

Figure 2: Cognitive task reliability evaluation and optimization workflow.

Integrated Methodological Framework for Brain-Behavior Associations

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Table 3: Essential Methodological Components for Reliability-Enhanced Research

Component Category	Specific Tools/Methods	Function in Reliability Enhancement
fMRI Acquisition Parameters	TR=2.6s, TE=25ms, flip angle=60°, 3.5mm isotropic voxels [67]	Optimizes temporal and spatial resolution for functional connectivity measurement
Physiological Noise Correction	RETROICOR [67]	Removes cardiac and respiratory artifacts that contribute to measurement error
Motion Correction	AFNI's rigid-body volume registration [67]	Minimizes motion-induced signal variations that compromise reliability
Nuisance Regressors	WM/CSF signals, motion parameters [67]	Removes spurious fluctuations of non-neuronal origin
Reliability Assessment Tools	Permutation-based split-halves analysis [62]	Quantifies internal consistency of measures
Convergence Metrics	Convergence coefficient (C) [62]	Measures rate at which tasks achieve stable reliability with increasing trials
Prediction Algorithms	Kernel Ridge Regression [65]	Tests practical utility of neural measures for individual differences
Online Reliability Calculator	Reliability Web App [62]	Enables researchers to estimate required trials for target reliability

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Scan Duration vs. Sample Size

When designing brain-wide association studies, researchers must navigate the fundamental trade-off between scan duration and sample size within fixed budgets. Recent empirical work enables precise modeling of this relationship [65]. The key finding is that for scans ≤20 minutes, prediction accuracy increases linearly with the logarithm of total scan duration (sample size × scan time per participant), suggesting initial interchangeability between these factors.

However, this interchangeability exhibits asymmetric diminishing returns. While sample size remains important, accounting for participant overhead costs (recruitment, screening, administrative) reveals substantial advantages for longer scans. Specifically, 30-minute scans yield approximately 22% cost savings compared to 10-minute scans while achieving equivalent prediction accuracy [65]. This counterintuitive result occurs because the cost of recruiting additional participants often exceeds the marginal cost of extended scanning time once a participant is in the scanner.

Enhancing reliability through optimized scan duration and cognitive task design represents a paradigm shift in brain-behavior research. Rather than exclusively pursuing massive sample sizes, the evidence compellingly demonstrates that data quality per participant critically influences our ability to detect meaningful individual differences. For fMRI studies, this means prioritizing longer scan durations (≥20 minutes, optimally ~30 minutes) to achieve reliable functional connectivity measures and phenotypic predictions. For cognitive task research, it necessitates rigorous psychometric evaluation and task optimization to ensure measures capture stable trait-like characteristics rather than transient state fluctuations.

Future research should focus on developing domain-specific reliability standards that account for the unique challenges of different cognitive constructs and neural systems. Additionally, the field would benefit from standardized reporting of reliability metrics for both neural and behavioral measures, enabling more accurate power calculations and facilitating cross-study comparisons. As we continue to refine these methodological approaches, the potential for brain-behavior associations to inform personalized biomarkers and interventions in precision medicine will substantially increase.

The empirical frameworks and practical protocols presented here provide a roadmap for researchers to enhance measurement reliability, ultimately strengthening the foundation of individual differences research in cognitive neuroscience and biological psychiatry.

The quest to understand brain-behavior associations represents a central challenge in modern neuroscience. The foundation of this endeavor lies in the initial step of functional decomposition—the process of breaking down complex, high-dimensional neuroimaging data into meaningful, interpretable components. The choice of decomposition strategy directly controls the sensitivity, interpretability, and ultimately, the success of any subsequent analysis aimed at linking neural mechanisms to behavior. A data-driven exploratory approach is increasingly recognized as essential for capturing the complex and individual-specific nature of brain organization without imposing premature theoretical constraints [10].

This guide provides a structured framework for selecting and implementing functional decomposition models, categorizing them into three core types: predefined, data-driven, and hybrid. We detail the principles, applications, and methodological protocols for each, with a continuous focus on their utility in brain-behavior research. Furthermore, we introduce advanced integrative deep-learning techniques that are pushing the boundaries of what can be discovered from multi-view biological and behavioral data.

A Conceptual Framework for Functional Decompositions

To navigate the landscape of decomposition methods, it is essential to first establish a clear taxonomy. A functional decomposition can be characterized along three primary attributes: its source, mode, and fit [10].

• Source: This attribute specifies the origin of the decomposition's boundaries.
  • Anatomic: Derived from structural features (e.g., gyral anatomy, cytoarchitecture).
  • Functional: Identified through patterns of coherent neural activity (e.g., from resting-state or task-based fMRI).
  • Multimodal: Leveraging multiple data types (e.g., diffusion MRI and fMRI) for a more comprehensive decomposition [10].
• Mode: This defines the nature of the resulting brain parcels.
  • Categorical: Discrete, non-overlapping regions with rigid boundaries (e.g., classic atlas parcellations).
  • Dimensional: Continuous, overlapping representations where network contributions vary across space and time (e.g., Independent Component Analysis - ICA, gradient mapping) [10].
• Fit: This describes how the decomposition is derived from the data.
  • Predefined: A fixed atlas (e.g., AAL, Yeo) is applied directly to an individual's data.
  • Data-Driven: Components are derived directly from the data without prior constraints.
  • Hybrid: Spatial priors or templates are refined and updated based on the individual's data using data-driven processes [10].

Table 1: A Taxonomy of Functional Decomposition Attributes

Attribute	Category	Description	Example Methods/Atlases
Source	Anatomic	Boundaries based on structural features	AAL [10]
	Functional	Boundaries based on coherent neural activity	NeuroMark [10]
	Multimodal	Combines multiple data modalities	Brainnetome [10], Glasser [10]
Mode	Categorical	Discrete, non-overlapping regions	Most predefined atlases
	Dimensional	Continuous, overlapping networks	ICA, gradient mapping [10]
Fit	Predefined	Fixed atlas applied to data	AAL, Yeo (when used as fixed) [10]
	Data-Driven	Derived from scratch from the data	Study-specific ICA [10]
	Hybrid	Spatial priors refined by individual data	Spatially constrained ICA, NeuroMark pipeline [10]

This framework highlights the fundamental contrast between traditional categorical, anatomic, predefined approaches and modern dimensional, functional, data-driven decompositions, while also accounting for the flexible hybrid methods that integrate prior information with data-adaptive processes [10].

Comparative Analysis of Decomposition Models

Predefined Models

Predefined models involve applying a fixed brain atlas or parcellation to all subjects in a study. These atlases, such as the Automated Anatomical Labeling (AAL) atlas or the Yeo 17-network atlas, are often derived from population-level analyses and provide a standardized coordinate system [10].

• Advantages: The primary strengths of predefined models are their simplicity, high comparability across studies, and ease of implementation. They offer a straightforward solution for hypothesis testing in well-defined regions.
• Disadvantages: A significant limitation is their inability to capture individual variability. Functional connectivity approaches using fixed atlases may group together voxels with different temporal coherence, potentially obscuring biologically relevant patterns [10]. This lack of sensitivity to individual differences can be a critical shortcoming in brain-behavior research, where such variability is often the signal of interest.

Data-Driven Models

Data-driven methods, such as Independent Component Analysis (ICA) and multivariate mode decomposition, discover patterns directly from the data without relying on pre-specified templates [10] [69].

• Advantages: The key strength of data-driven approaches is their high sensitivity to individual and group-specific patterns. They can reveal novel, unexpected features of the data that may be missed by predefined models. Methods like Multivariate Variational Mode Decomposition (MVMD) are particularly powerful as they can handle the non-linear and non-stationary nature of fMRI data and adapt to individual frequency characteristics without relying on static, pre-defined filters [69].
• Disadvantages: A major challenge is establishing correspondence of components across subjects and studies. Furthermore, fully data-driven decompositions can be less stable and more difficult to interpret without careful validation. The widely used group ICA approach was developed specifically to address the correspondence problem [10].

Hybrid Models

Hybrid models, such as the NeuroMark pipeline, represent a powerful middle ground. They start with a set of spatial priors—often derived from large, normative datasets—and then use a data-driven process to refine these components for each individual subject [10].

• Advantages: Hybrid approaches balance individual sensitivity with cross-subject comparability. They capture individual variability while maintaining the correspondence and ordering of components across individuals. This regularization also helps to stabilize the solution, enhancing reproducibility and generalizability [10]. Furthermore, they have been shown to outperform predefined atlases in predictive accuracy for brain-behavior associations [10].
• Disadvantages: The quality of the results can be dependent on the appropriateness of the spatial priors chosen. The process is also computationally more complex than simply applying a predefined atlas.

Table 2: Model Comparison for Brain-Behavior Research

Criterion	Predefined	Data-Driven	Hybrid
Individual Variability	Low	High	High
Cross-Study Comparison	High	Low/Moderate	High
Implementation Simplicity	High	Low	Moderate
Theoretical Flexibility	Low (Requires a priori hypotheses)	High (Ideal for exploration)	Moderate-High
Handling of Dynamics	Poor	Good (e.g., via MVMD [69])	Good (e.g., allows networks to change shape [10])
Recommended Use Case	Hypothesis testing in well-defined networks; multi-site consortium studies	Discovery science; exploring individual differences; data with unique spectral properties [69]	Lifespan studies; clinical biomarker development; robust predictive modeling [10]

Experimental Protocols for Decomposition Analysis

Protocol for Hybrid Decomposition with NeuroMark

The NeuroMark framework provides an automated pipeline for estimating subject-specific functional networks while maintaining cross-subject correspondence [10].

• Template Creation: A replicable set of ICA components is identified by running blind ICA on multiple large-scale fMRI datasets. These serve as the spatial priors for the template.
• Spatially Constrained ICA: For a new subject, the template spatial maps are used as priors in a spatially constrained ICA analysis. This allows the maps to be refined and updated to fit the individual's data.
• Output: The pipeline produces subject-specific spatial maps and timecourses for each network, which can then be used for downstream analysis, such as correlating network strength or dynamics with behavioral measures [10].

Protocol for Multivariate Mode Decomposition (MVMD)

MVMD is an adaptive, frequency-based method for analyzing functional connectivity across multiple timescales, which is particularly useful for capturing non-stationary dynamics in brain-behavior associations [69].

• Data Preparation: Extract fMRI BOLD signals from C regions of interest (ROIs) for each subject.
• Mode Decomposition: Apply the MVMD algorithm to the multivariate signal ( x(t) = [x1(t), x2(t), ..., xC(t)]^T ). The algorithm decomposes the signal into K intrinsic multivariate oscillatory components (IMs), such that ( x(t) = \sum{k=1}^K u^{(k)}(t) ). Each component ( u^{(k)}(t) ) is an amplitude- and frequency-modulated oscillation with a well-defined instantaneous frequency shared across all channels [69].
• Functional Connectivity Analysis: Calculate static functional connectivity (e.g., using correlation) between the derived modes across different ROIs for each frequency band of interest. This reveals connectivity patterns at different temporal scales.
• Behavioral Correlation: Relect the power or connectivity strength of the isolated modes to behavioral task performance or clinical scores.

Protocol for fNIRS in Dyadic Brain-Behavior Experiments

This protocol is designed to capture brain-behavior associations in ecologically valid, interactive settings, such as caregiver-infant interactions [70].

• Participants & Setup: Recruit dyads (e.g., 90 caregiver-infant pairs). Record naturalistic interactions (e.g., 5-7 minutes of toy play) while simultaneously collecting brain activity from both partners using functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS).
• Behavioral Coding: Code video recordings of the interactions for specific attention periods, such as "joint attention" (both partners attending to the same object) and infant "continued attention" (infant solo focus following joint attention).
• fNIRS Processing: Process the fNIRS data to extract significant clusters of activation in pre-defined regions of interest (e.g., superior temporal gyrus, prefrontal cortex).
• Memory Assessment: Administer a visual short-term memory task to infants (e.g., a preferential looking task) to obtain an independent cognitive measure.
• Statistical Analysis: Employ linear multiple regression models to test associations between:
  • Duration of joint attention and duration of continued attention.
  • Brain activation in both partners during joint attention.
  • Brain activation during continued attention and infant visual short-term memory performance [70].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Tools for Functional Decomposition and Brain-Behavior Analysis

Tool Category	Specific Tool / Technique	Function in Research
Decomposition Software	NeuroMark Pipeline [10]	Automated, spatially constrained ICA for individualized network decomposition.
	Multivariate Variational Mode Decomposition (MVMD) [69]	Data-driven decomposition of fMRI signals into intrinsic oscillatory components across multiple timescales.
Multi-View Modeling	Multi-view Variational Autoencoders (mVAE) [71]	Integrates diverse data sources (e.g., imaging, behavior) into a joint latent space to discover complex brain-behavior associations.
Digital Avatar Analysis (DAA) [71]	An interpretability framework that uses a trained mVAE to simulate the effect of behavioral score variations on brain patterns.
Stability Selection [71]	A robust machine learning technique to identify stable brain-behavior associations across different data splits and model initializations.
Neuroimaging Hardware	Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) [70]	Enables measurement of brain function in naturalistic, dyadic interactions, which is crucial for ecologically valid brain-behavior research.
Data & Templates	Large-scale fMRI datasets (e.g., UK Biobank, HCP)	Provide the necessary data for creating robust templates for hybrid decompositions and for training deep learning models.

Advanced Frontiers: Integrative Deep Learning for Brain-Behavior Associations

Moving beyond a single decomposition, the next frontier involves the integration of multiple data views (e.g., neuroimaging, genetics, symptom reports) to capture the full complexity of psychiatric conditions. This aligns with the NIMH's Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework, which promotes dimensional and transdiagnostic approaches [71].

A state-of-the-art methodology involves multi-view Variational Autoencoders (mVAE). These are generative deep learning models designed to learn a joint latent representation from multiple data types. The MoPoE-VAE is a specific architecture that can learn both view-specific and shared representations, helping to isolate confounding factors like acquisition site effects [71].

The key challenge with such complex models is interpretability. The Digital Avatar Analysis (DAA) method addresses this. After training an mVAE, researchers can generate "digital avatars" by perturbing a subject's behavioral score in the model and observing the corresponding change in the generated brain image. By performing linear regression on a set of such avatars, stable brain-behavior associations can be identified [71]. To ensure these associations are robust, this process should be combined with stability selection, a technique that assesses the consistency of findings across different data splits and model initializations [71].

The choice of functional decomposition model is a foundational decision that shapes the entire analytical pathway in brain-behavior research. Predefined atlases offer standardization, data-driven methods provide discovery power, and hybrid models deliver an optimal balance for individualized yet generalizable biomarker development. The emerging paradigm champions data-guided approaches that resist premature dimensionality reduction to preserve the rich, high-dimensional nature of brain data [10].

As the field progresses, success will increasingly depend on the principled integration of multiple decomposition strategies and data types through advanced computational frameworks like mVAEs. By combining these sophisticated models with robust validation techniques such as stability selection, researchers can uncover stable, interpretable, and clinically impactful associations between brain function and behavior, ultimately advancing a more precise and personalized cognitive neuroscience.

The field of cognitive neuroscience is undergoing a paradigm shift from group-averaged brain maps to individualized analysis frameworks. This technical guide details why subject-specific parcellations and functional alignment techniques significantly outperform traditional group-level approaches in predicting behavioral measures and characterizing brain function. Evidence from major initiatives like the Human Connectome Project (HCP) and the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study demonstrates that individual-specific hard parcellations achieve superior behavioral prediction accuracy compared to group-average parcellations [72]. Concurrently, precision functional mapping reveals that fundamental brain networks—including those for language and social thinking—are physically interwoven in unique patterns across individuals, explaining why one-size-fits-all group maps fail to capture critical behavioral relevance [73]. This whitepaper establishes the empirical and methodological foundations for individualized brain analysis within the broader thesis of data-driven exploratory approaches to brain-behavior associations.

Theoretical Foundations: From Group Averages to Individual Variability

The Limitations of Group-Level Brain Maps

Traditional neuroimaging studies rely on spatial normalization and group-level functional brain parcellations, which impose an implicit assumption of perfect correspondence in functional topography across individuals. This approach obscures meaningful individual differences in brain organization that directly impact behavior and cognitive function [73]. Group-level analyses essentially average across subjects, masking the very neural variants that might predict behavioral traits or clinical outcomes.

The Individual Variability Hypothesis

Emerging evidence supports what might be termed the "Individual Variability Hypothesis"—that individually unique features of brain organization are behaviorally meaningful and reproducible within subjects, yet systematically variable across subjects. Precision functional mapping has revealed that networks in the frontal lobe are arranged in tightly interwoven patterns that vary across individuals [73]. While the exact position of networks varies across individuals, the network sequences remain conserved, suggesting a need for individual-level analysis to understand the neural basis of behavior [73].

Empirical Evidence: Quantitative Comparisons of Methodological Performance

Direct Performance Comparison: Parcellations vs. Gradients

A comprehensive comparison of resting-state functional connectivity (RSFC) representation approaches demonstrates the superior predictive power of individual-specific parcellations for behavioral prediction [72].

Table 1: Behavioral Prediction Performance Across Representation Approaches

Representation Approach	HCP Dataset Performance	ABCD Dataset Performance	Key Characteristics
Individual-specific "hard" parcellations	Best performance	Similar to other approaches	Non-overlapping, individual-specific ROIs [72]
Group-average "hard" parcellations	Lower than individual-specific	Similar to other approaches	Non-overlapping, group-level ROIs [72]
Individual-specific "soft" parcellations (ICA)	Moderate performance	Similar to other approaches	Overlapping ROIs via spatial ICA [72]
Principal gradients	Similar to group parcellations (requires 40-60 gradients)	Similar to parcellation approaches	Manifold learning algorithms [72]
Local gradients	Worst performance	Worst performance	Detects local RSFC changes [72]

Resolution Optimization for Predictive Accuracy

The performance of different representation approaches depends significantly on resolution parameters. For gradient approaches, utilizing higher-order gradients provides substantial behavioral information beyond the single gradient typically used in many studies [72]. Empirical evidence indicates that principal gradient approaches require at least 40 to 60 gradients to perform equivalently to parcellation approaches [72]. Similarly, for parcellation-based approaches, research suggests an optimal cardinality exists for capturing local gradients of functional maps, with approximately 200 parcels yielding the highest accuracy for local linear rest-to-task map prediction [74].

Clinical Validation in Diagnostic Contexts

The superior performance of individualized approaches extends to clinical applications. Data-driven gray matter signatures derived from individualized analyses demonstrate stronger associations with episodic memory, executive function, and Clinical Dementia Rating scores than standard brain measures like hippocampal volume [75]. These individualized signatures also show enhanced ability to classify clinical syndromes across the normal, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia spectrum, outperforming traditionally accepted biomarkers [75].

Methodological Approaches: Experimental Protocols and Implementation

Individual-Specific Hard Parcellation Generation

The top-performing approach for behavioral prediction involves creating individual-specific hard parcellations using the following experimental protocol [72]:

Preprocessing Requirements:

• Acquire resting-state fMRI data with sufficient temporal resolution (e.g., HCP-style protocols)
• Apply rigorous motion correction (e.g., ICA-FIX denoising)
• Implement global signal regression and censoring to eliminate artifacts
• Project data to standardized surface space (e.g., fs_LR32k)
• Ensure quality control: exclude runs with >50% censored frames

Parcellation Generation Protocol:

• Input Data Preparation: Use preprocessed resting-state fMRI time series data in surface space
• Functional Connectivity Estimation: Calculate full correlation (Pearson's correlation) between time series of cortical vertices
• Individual Clustering: Apply spatial clustering algorithms to individual connectivity matrices
• Boundary Definition: Define non-overlapping parcels based on connectivity similarity
• Resolution Optimization: Generate multiple parcellations with varying numbers of regions (typically 50-500 parcels)
• Feature Extraction: Compute parcel-wise functional connectivity matrices for behavioral prediction

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Tool/Resource	Function	Application Context
Resting-state fMRI data	Measures spontaneous brain activity	Primary input for connectivity analysis [72]
Surface-based registration (fs_LR32k)	Standardizes brain geometry across subjects	Enables cross-subject comparison [72]
ICA-FIX denoising	Removes motion and artifact components	Data quality improvement [72]
Global signal regression	Reduces widespread non-neural fluctuations	Controversial but effective denoising step [72]
Framewise censoring	Removes motion-contaminated timepoints	Motion artifact mitigation [72]

Precision Functional Mapping Protocol

Precision functional mapping represents an alternative individualized approach with particular strength for therapeutic applications [73]:

Data Acquisition Specifications:

• Collect extended fMRI data per subject (up to 10 hours per individual)
• Include both resting-state and task-based paradigms
• Maintain consistent acquisition parameters across sessions

Analysis Workflow:

• Subject-Specific Time Series Extraction: Process data without group-level spatial constraints
• Functional Connectivity Estimation: Calculate correlations between all voxels or vertices
• Network Identification: Apply clustering or decomposition algorithms to individual connectivity matrices
• Cross-Validation: Verify network reproducibility within individual datasets
• Individual Network Comparison: Identify common and unique networks across subjects

Hyper-Alignment Implementation

Hyper-alignment techniques project individual brains into a common functional space that preserves individual topographic patterns rather than forcing alignment to a group-average structural template.

Applications and Therapeutic Implications

Precision Therapeutics in Psychiatry

Individualized brain mapping directly enables personalized interventions for treatment-resistant psychiatric conditions. For attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), precision mapping has revealed that children who respond to methylphenidate (Ritalin) show specific changes in how the brain's somato-cognitive action network communicates with reward systems [73]. These individual-specific network interaction patterns may predict treatment response before medication initiation.

Optimization of Neuromodulation Therapies

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) parameter tuning represents a powerful application of individualized brain analysis. Traditional DBS programming requires weeks of adjustment, but precision mapping techniques now enable algorithm-driven "tuning" of electrical stimulation based on individual brain circuitry [73]. This approach optimizes not only stimulation location but also intensity and timing parameters based on individual functional architecture, potentially improving outcomes for depression, autism, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Enhanced Behavioral Prediction

Individualized parcellations significantly improve the prediction of diverse behavioral measures from neuroimaging data. The enhanced predictive power stems from their ability to capture individual differences in network boundaries and functional specialization that are lost in group-average approaches [72] [76]. This has profound implications for early detection of neuropsychiatric conditions and understanding the neural basis of cognitive traits.

Integration with Data-Driven Brain Behavior Associations

The Union Signature Approach

Recent work on data-driven gray matter signatures demonstrates how individualized approaches can be scaled for population-level insights. The "Union Signature" methodology identifies a common brain signature derived from multiple behavior-specific, data-driven signatures that outperforms standard brain measures in classifying clinical syndromes [75]. This approach maintains individual sensitivity while enabling cross-cohort validation.

Multi-Domain Brain Signatures

The most powerful data-driven signatures emerge from integrating multiple behavioral domains. A generalized gray matter signature derived from episodic memory and executive function measures demonstrates stronger clinical associations than domain-specific signatures [75]. This suggests that shared neural substrates underlie multiple cognitive domains, and individualized approaches best capture these relationships.

Future Directions and Implementation Guidelines

Scaling Individualized Approaches

Wider adoption of individualized analysis requires addressing computational and methodological challenges:

• Data Requirements: Individual-specific parcellations typically require high-quality resting-state fMRI with sufficient scan duration (≥20 minutes clean data)
• Computational Resources: Individualized methods demand greater processing power and storage than group-level approaches
• Analytical Validation: Implementation should include robustness checks and reproducibility assessments
• Multi-Scale Integration: Future frameworks must bridge molecular, cellular, circuit, and systems levels across spatial and temporal domains [11]

Ethical Considerations in Personalized Neuroscience

As precision brain mapping advances, important ethical implications emerge regarding neural enhancement, data privacy, and appropriate use of brain data in legal, educational, and business contexts [11]. The field must maintain the highest ethical standards for research with human subjects while developing these powerful individualized approaches.

The empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports the superiority of hyper-alignment and subject-specific parcellations over group-level maps for understanding brain-behavior relationships. These individualized approaches capture behaviorally relevant neural variability that is lost in group averages, leading to improved prediction of cognitive measures, clinical outcomes, and treatment response. As the field moves toward personalized therapeutics for brain disorders, individualized analysis frameworks will become increasingly essential for both basic neuroscience and clinical translation. The ongoing integration of these approaches with data-driven discovery methods represents the most promising path forward for elucidating the complex relationships between brain organization and behavior.

Benchmarking Success: Validating Data-Driven Frameworks Against RDoC and DSM for Clinical Translation

The quest to establish a biologically grounded framework for understanding human brain function and mental disorders represents a central challenge in modern neuroscience and psychiatry. For decades, the field has relied on expert-derived taxonomies such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) for classifying mental disorders. More recently, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) developed the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework, which aims to provide a more neurobiologically-informed approach by organizing research around dimensional constructs spanning multiple units of analysis from genes to behavior [77] [78]. In parallel, data-driven approaches leveraging natural language processing and machine learning have emerged as powerful alternatives that derive neurobiological domains directly from the scientific literature itself [79] [12].

This technical guide provides an in-depth comparison of these competing paradigms within the context of a broader thesis on data-driven exploratory approaches to brain-behavior associations research. We synthesize evidence from multiple studies to evaluate how effectively each framework explains neural data, with particular emphasis on quantitative metrics, methodological protocols, and practical applications for researchers and drug development professionals.

Framework Foundations and Theoretical Underpinnings

The Expert-Led RDoC Framework

The RDoC initiative was launched by NIMH in response to recognized limitations of symptom-based diagnostic systems. The framework organizes research around five major domains: Negative Valence Systems, Positive Valence Systems, Cognitive Systems, Systems for Social Processes, and Arousal and Regulatory Systems [77]. A sixth domain, Sensorimotor Systems, was added later [80].

RDoC's foundational principles include:

• Dimensional approach: Studying constructs across a continuum from normal to abnormal functioning [78]
• Multiple units of analysis: Integrating data from genes, molecules, cells, circuits, physiology, behavior, and self-reports [77] [78]
• Translational perspective: Starting with established knowledge of normative neurobehavioral processes [78]
• Circuit-based conceptualization: Viewing mental disorders as disorders of brain circuits [77]

The framework employs a matrix organization with rows representing units of analysis and columns representing functional domains/constructs, intended to facilitate research that transcends traditional diagnostic categories [78].

Data-Driven Framework Methodology

In contrast to RDoC's top-down expert consensus approach, data-driven frameworks employ bottom-up computational methods to derive neurobiological domains directly from the scientific literature. The seminal approach by Beam et al. (2021) utilized:

• Corpus: 18,155 human neuroimaging studies (fMRI and PET) with coordinate data [79]
• Term extraction: 1,683 mental function terms from established sources (RDoC, BrainMap Taxonomy, Cognitive Atlas) [79]
• Anatomical mapping: 605,292 spatial coordinates mapped to 118 gray matter structures [79]
• Computational pipeline: Natural language processing and machine learning to identify coherent structure-function relationships [79] [12]

The methodology applies information theory metrics (pointwise mutual information) to identify specific structure-function associations, followed by clustering to group brain structures into circuits based on functional similarity [79].

Quantitative Framework Comparison

Performance Metrics and Neural Specificity

Multiple studies have directly compared the ability of data-driven and RDoC frameworks to explain neural circuit-function relationships. The table below summarizes key quantitative findings:

Table 1: Quantitative Comparison of Framework Performance

Performance Metric	Data-Driven Framework	RDoC Framework	Assessment Method
Replication strength	Superior - Structure-function links better replicated in held-out articles [79]	Lower reproducibility of circuit-function links [79]	Cross-validation with training/test sets
Neural specificity	Higher - Domains show more distinct neural circuit signatures [13]	Considerable overlap between domains (e.g., Negative/Positive Valence, Arousal) [13]	Bifactor analysis of whole-brain activation maps
Circuit-function coherence	Stronger - More modular organization with clearer structure-function mappings [79]	Less modular - Some constructs span multiple neural systems [79]	Modularity analysis of literature co-occurrence patterns
Generalizability	High - Domain-level information effectively predicts single-study results [79]	Moderate - Some constructs show poor generalizability to individual studies [79]	Predictive modeling of study-level brain activations
Domain structure	Emergent - Six domains: memory, reward, cognition, vision, manipulation, language [12]	Predefined - Five-six domains based on expert consensus [77] [80]	Computational ontology derived from 18,000+ studies

Domain Structure and Neural Implementation

A critical distinction between the frameworks lies in their domain organization and neural implementation:

Table 2: Domain Architecture Comparison

Aspect	Data-Driven Framework	RDoC Framework
Emotion processing	Integrated within memory and reward circuits; no distinct emotion domains [12]	Separate Negative Valence (fear, anxiety) and Positive Valence (reward) domains [77] [12]
Cognitive-emotional integration	Combined - Cognition domain includes emotional terms and structures (insula, cingulate) [12]	Separated - Distinct Cognitive Systems and Valence domains [77] [12]
Arousal systems	Integrated within other domains rather than as separate system [12]	Distinct Arousal and Regulatory Systems domain [77]
Sensorimotor processing	Separate vision and manipulation domains [12]	Combined Sensorimotor Systems domain [80]
Clinical alignment	Poor alignment with DSM categories [12]	Intended to inform future diagnostic systems [78]

Recent validation studies using latent variable approaches with whole-brain task fMRI activation maps (n=6,192 participants) further support these distinctions, showing that data-driven bifactor models better fit neural activation patterns than RDoC models [13].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Data-Driven Framework Generation Protocol

The generation of data-driven neurobiological domains follows a rigorous computational pipeline:

Data Acquisition and Preprocessing:

• Collect full texts of neuroimaging articles from databases (BrainMap, Neurosynth) and web scraping [79]
• Extract spatial coordinates (x, y, z) and map to standardized neuroanatomical atlas (118 gray matter structures) [79]
• Preprocess texts to extract mental function terms (1,683 terms) from established lexicons [79]

Computational Analysis:

• Compute structure-function co-occurrences across studies
• Apply pointwise mutual information (PMI) weighting to identify specific associations [79]
• Perform k-means clustering (k=2-50) of brain structures based on PMI-weighted co-occurrences [79]
• Select representative mental functions via point-biserial correlations with circuit centroids [79]

Validation and Optimization:

• Split data into training (70%), validation (20%), and test (10%) sets [79]
• Determine optimal number of terms per domain via logistic regression classifiers [79]
• Evaluate domain performance using reproducibility, modularity, and generalizability metrics [79]

RDoC Validation Protocol

Recent studies have employed sophisticated statistical approaches to validate the RDoC framework against neural data:

Data Compilation:

• Curate whole-brain task-based fMRI activation maps from multiple studies (e.g., Neurovault, UK Biobank) [13]
• Select maps with balanced representation of RDoC domains [13]
• Code each activation map according to corresponding RDoC domain based on task descriptions [13]

Latent Variable Modeling:

• Conduct confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with RDoC factors [13]
• Compare specific factor models (domains only) with bifactor models (general + specific factors) [13]
• Extract data-driven factors using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) [13]
• Evaluate model fit using robust indices (RMSEA, CFI, TLI) and information criteria (AIC, BIC) [13]

Validation and Generalization:

• Internal validation using held-out activation maps [13]
• External validation with Neurosynth coordinate-based maps [13]
• Compare RDoC and data-driven model performance [13]

Table 3: Key Research Resources for Framework Implementation

Resource	Type	Function	Framework Application
BrainMap Database [79]	Data Repository	Archives published neuroimaging studies with coordinate data	Provides foundational data for data-driven framework generation
Neurosynth [79] [13]	Automated Synthesis Platform	Large-scale automated synthesis of human neuroimaging data	Enables text-mining and meta-analysis of brain-behavior associations
Allen Human Brain Atlas [81]	Transcriptomic Database	Maps gene expression across the human brain	Links framework constructs to molecular-level data
Neuromaps [81]	Python Toolbox	Statistical analysis and comparison of brain maps	Integrates multiple data types (architecture, cellular, dynamics, function)
Bifactor Modeling [13]	Statistical Approach	Latent variable modeling with general and specific factors	Tests hierarchical structure of frameworks against neural data
Pointwise Mutual Information [79]	Information Theory Metric	Identifies specific structure-function associations	Core computational metric in data-driven framework generation
Natural Language Processing [79]	Computational Linguistics	Extracts mental function terms from article texts	Automates literature mining for data-driven approaches

Implications for Research and Drug Development

Neuroscience Research Applications

The comparative evaluation of frameworks has significant implications for research design:

Experimental Paradigm Selection: Data-driven frameworks suggest reorganization of task paradigms based on shared neural circuitry rather than traditional psychological categories [12]. This could lead to more neurally-informed task batteries that better target specific circuit functions.

Participant Characterization: Both frameworks emphasize dimensional approaches, but data-driven domains may provide more circuit-based phenotyping strategies that cut across diagnostic categories [79] [78]. This could reduce heterogeneity in research samples.

Analytical Approaches: Data-driven frameworks naturally accommodate computational modeling approaches such as predictive processing, which offers a unifying theory for understanding information processing across multiple units of analysis [80].

Drug Discovery and Development

The framework comparison has particular relevance for CNS drug development:

Target Identification: Data-driven approaches may identify novel circuit-based targets by revealing structure-function relationships not apparent in expert-driven frameworks [79]. For example, the integration of emotional processes within memory and reward circuits suggests new targeting strategies [12].

Translational Challenges: RDoC was explicitly designed to address the poor translation between preclinical and clinical phases in CNS drug discovery [77]. However, data-driven frameworks may offer more accurate cross-species alignment of functional domains based on conserved neural circuitry.

Biomarker Development: Data-driven domains demonstrate stronger links to specific neural circuits, potentially facilitating the development of circuit-based biomarkers for patient stratification and treatment response prediction [79] [77].

Clinical Trial Design: Both frameworks support moving beyond traditional diagnostic categories toward dimensionally-defined patient groups, which may reduce heterogeneity and improve clinical trial success rates [77] [78].

The head-to-head comparison between data-driven and expert-led (RDoC) frameworks reveals distinct strengths and limitations for each approach in explaining neural data. Data-driven frameworks demonstrate superior reproducibility, modularity, and generalizability of circuit-function links, suggesting they may more accurately capture the inherent organization of human brain function [79] [13]. However, the RDoC framework provides a comprehensive conceptual structure that spans multiple units of analysis and has proven valuable for organizing research on fundamental neurobehavioral systems [77] [78].

For researchers and drug development professionals, the choice between frameworks depends on specific research goals. Data-driven approaches offer empirically-derived neural alignments that may enhance biomarker development and target identification, while RDoC provides a theoretically-grounded framework for integrating findings across biological and behavioral levels of analysis. The most productive path forward likely involves continued refinement of both approaches, with data-driven methods providing empirical validation and suggested modifications to expert-led frameworks, ultimately advancing the goal of a biologically-grounded understanding of human brain function and mental disorders.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) has structured psychiatric diagnosis for decades, yet its symptom-based categories demonstrate limited validity when mapped against the organizational principles of brain circuitry. This whitepaper synthesizes contemporary neuroimaging, genetic, and computational evidence revealing that the brain's architecture does not respect DSM-defined boundaries. We articulate a paradigm shift from descriptive nosology to data-driven, circuit-based frameworks that align with the transdiagnostic biological processes underlying mental disorders. By integrating evidence from coordinate network mapping, precision sampling, dynamical systems theory, and normative brain modeling, this analysis provides researchers and drug development professionals with both the conceptual foundation and methodological toolkit for advancing a new nosology grounded in brain-behavior associations.

The DSM's primary strength—diagnostic reliability achieved through standardized symptom checklists—has proven to be its fundamental scientific weakness. By prioritizing consensus-derived clinical descriptions over biological validity, the DSM has created a taxonomy that poorly corresponds to the brain's functional and structural organization [82]. The National Institute of Mental Health's pivot toward Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) acknowledged this limitation, recognizing that mental disorders manifest through dysregulated neural circuits that do not align with DSM categories [82]. This whitepaper synthesizes evidence from multiple emerging frameworks demonstrating why DSM diagnoses fail to map onto brain circuits and outlines the methodological approaches required to bridge this clinical gap.

Fundamental Disconnect: DSM Categories Versus Brain Organization

Descriptive Symptom Clusters Versus Circuit-Based Dysfunction

The DSM follows a categorical approach that artificially divides overlapping neurobiological phenomena into discrete diagnostic silos. This model assumes distinct pathophysiological boundaries between disorders that lack empirical support. In reality, the brain operates through distributed, overlapping networks that support specific functions—such as threat detection, reward anticipation, or cognitive control—which cut across multiple DSM diagnoses [83] [82]. For instance, coordinate network mapping reveals that both major depressive disorder (MDD) and late-life depression (LLD) share significant connections to the frontoparietal control network and dorsal attention network—common circuit-level abnormalities undetectable through conventional meta-analysis focusing on regional convergence [83].

The Problem of Comorbidity and Symptom Overlap

The high rates of comorbidity in psychiatric practice reflect the artificial separation of conditions that share underlying neural mechanisms. The DSM's "flat" diagnostic structure, which lacks a hierarchical organization to distinguish primary from secondary manifestations, leads to diagnostic proliferation without corresponding explanatory power [82]. For example, symptoms of irritability, sleep disturbance, and poor concentration manifest across multiple DSM categories including generalized anxiety and major depression, likely reflecting shared circuit disruptions rather than distinct disorders [82].

Table 1: Comparative Features of DSM vs. Circuit-Based Approaches to Mental Dysfunction

Feature	DSM Diagnostic Approach	Circuit-Based Framework
Primary Focus	Symptom clusters & checklists	Brain network dynamics & connectivity
Organization	Categorical & discrete	Dimensional & continuous
Comorbidity	Treated as co-occurring illnesses	Reveals shared circuit dysfunction
Validation	Clinical consensus & reliability	Neurobiological measures & prediction
Therapeutic Targeting	Symptom reduction	Circuit modulation & normalization
Temporal Dimension	Static diagnostic status	Dynamic trajectory & evolution

Emerging Evidence: Circuit-Level Insights Transcending DSM Boundaries

Coordinate Network Mapping Reveals Transdiagnostic Circuitry

Coordinate-based network mapping (CNM) represents a methodological advancement over traditional meta-analysis techniques like activation likelihood estimation (ALE). While ALE identifies regional convergence of neuroimaging findings, CNM leverages the human connectome to map coordinates onto whole-brain circuits rather than individual regions [83]. This approach has demonstrated that neuroimaging coordinates associated with different clinical presentations—such as MDD and LLD—converge on common brain circuits despite showing no regional overlap in conventional analyses [83]. These findings suggest that circuit-level dysfunction may represent a more valid organizing principle for psychiatric classification than symptom-based categories.

Brain Age Gap as a Transdiagnostic Biomarker

The brain age gap—the difference between predicted brain age and chronological age—represents a holistic biomarker capturing deviations from normative aging patterns across multiple brain regions [84]. Unlike region-specific markers, this metric reflects global brain health and demonstrates relevance across diagnostic categories. In schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD), an increased brain age gap correlates with negative symptoms and cognitive deficits, capturing clinically relevant information that crosses traditional diagnostic boundaries [84]. Exercise interventions can reduce this gap, with changes tracking improvements in negative symptoms and cognition regardless of specific diagnosis [84].

Subtype Identification Through Normative Modeling

Normative modeling of gray matter volume (GMV) in major depressive disorder has revealed structurally distinct subtypes with potentially different underlying mechanisms. One subtype exhibits GMV reduction with accelerated brain aging, while another shows GMV increase without accelerated aging [85]. Despite their structural differences, both subtypes converge on the default mode network as a common disease epicenter while also possessing subtype-specific epicenters (hippocampus/amygdala for the atrophy subtype vs. accumbens for the increased GMV subtype) [85]. This demonstrates how data-driven approaches can parse neurobiological heterogeneity obscured by DSM categories.

Table 2: Data-Driven Methodologies for Circuit-Based Psychiatry

Methodology	Description	Key Finding	Advantage Over DSM
Coordinate Network Mapping	Maps neuroimaging coordinates to whole-brain circuits using connectome data	MDD & LLD share frontoparietal & dorsal attention network connectivity	Reveals circuit commonalities invisible to regional analysis
Normative Modeling	Quantifies individual deviations from healthy brain models	Identifies structurally distinct MDD subtypes with different aging trajectories	Parses neurobiological heterogeneity within diagnostic categories
Precision Sampling	Collects extensive data per individual across multiple contexts	Improves reliability of brain-behavior associations, especially for noisy measures	Reduces measurement error obscuring individual-level brain-behavior links
Dynamical Systems Analysis	Extracts dynamical properties from neuroelectric fields (EEG)	Enables quantitative snapshots of neural circuit function for trajectory monitoring	Captures temporal dynamics of circuit function rather than static categories

Methodological Frameworks for Circuit-Based Psychiatry

Precision Approaches for Reliable Brain-Behavior Associations

Brain-wide association studies (BWAS) historically relied on small samples, resulting in poor replicability and limited clinical utility [2]. While consortium datasets address sample size limitations, many still suffer from insufficient data per individual, particularly for clinically relevant measures like inhibitory control [2]. Precision approaches address this by collecting extensive within-subject data across multiple contexts, significantly improving the reliability of individual difference measures [2]. For behavioral measures with high trial-level variability (e.g., inhibitory control tasks), collecting thousands rather than dozens of trials dramatically improves reliability and enhances detection of brain-behavior relationships [2].

Hybrid Decomposition Models for Individual Variability

The challenge of capturing meaningful individual differences while maintaining cross-subject comparability has driven development of hybrid neuroimaging decomposition approaches. Methods like the NeuroMark pipeline use spatially constrained independent component analysis (ICA) to leverage spatial priors derived from large datasets while allowing individual-specific refinement [10]. This hybrid approach balances fidelity to individual data with the need for generalizability, creating a more biologically plausible framework for understanding brain dysfunction than category-based approaches [10]. Functional decompositions can be classified along three attributes: source (anatomical, functional, multimodal), mode (categorical, dimensional), and fit (predefined, data-driven, hybrid), with hybrid approaches offering particular promise for clinical applications [10].

Dynamical Systems Theory for Tracking Brain State Trajectories

Viewing brain function through a dynamical systems lens provides a framework for understanding mental health as a trajectory through time rather than a fixed diagnostic state [86]. This approach uses electrophysiological measurements (e.g., EEG) to derive quantitative snapshots of neural circuit function that can be incorporated into predictive models [86]. By focusing on the dynamic properties of the neuroelectric field—the fundamental substrate of neural communication—this framework bridges the gap between molecular/cellular processes and observable behaviors that DSM categories merely describe [86].

Diagram 1: Data-Driven Framework. This illustrates the pathway from fundamental risk factors to observable symptoms, emphasizing measurement of circuit-level dysfunction as the crucial bridge between biology and clinical presentation.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Methodologies and Reagents

Research Reagent Solutions for Circuit-Based Investigation

Table 3: Essential Methodologies and Analytical Tools for Circuit-Based Psychiatry Research

Tool/Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Key Considerations
Neuroimaging Modalities	fMRI (resting-state, task-based), structural MRI, qEEG, MEG	Measures brain structure, function, and connectivity at various temporal and spatial scales	Multimodal integration provides complementary information; portable EEG enables longitudinal monitoring
Analytical Frameworks	Coordinate Network Mapping, Normative Modeling, Hybrid Decomposition (NeuroMark), Dynamical Systems Analysis	Identifies circuit-level abnormalities, quantifies individual deviations from healthy norms, models temporal dynamics	Hybrid approaches balance individual specificity with cross-study comparability
Computational Tools	Brain Age Prediction, Independent Component Analysis (ICA), Functional Network Connectivity (FNC)	Provides data-driven biomarkers, decomposes brain signals into functional networks, models network interactions	Brain age gap offers global biomarker of brain health; ICA captures overlapping network organization
Interventional Paradigms	Exercise protocols, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS), Pharmacological challenges	Tests causal role of circuits, provides therapeutic development targets, probes system dynamics	Exercise shows transdiagnostic benefits for brain age; TMS targets circuit dysfunction rather than diagnoses

Experimental Protocol: Coordinate Network Mapping

Purpose: To identify circuit-level commonalities across psychiatric conditions that may share underlying pathophysiology but are classified separately in DSM.

Procedure:

• Systematic Literature Search: Identify published neuroimaging studies reporting peak activation coordinates for disorders of interest (e.g., MDD and LLD)
• Coordinate Extraction: Harvest coordinates of peak structural or functional changes from selected studies
• Network Mapping: Leverage normative connectome data (e.g., Human Connectome Project) to map coordinates onto whole-brain circuits rather than individual regions
• Convergence Analysis: Identify brain networks showing significant spatial convergence of coordinates across disorders
• Specificity Testing: Compare findings with control coordinates from other psychiatric or neurological conditions to assess diagnostic specificity

Key Analysis: Contrast results with conventional activation likelihood estimation (ALE) meta-analysis to demonstrate advantages of circuit-level approach [83].

Experimental Protocol: Precision Sampling for Brain-Behavior Associations

Purpose: To obtain reliable individual-level estimates of brain function and behavior that can support robust predictive models.

Procedure:

• Extended Data Collection: Acquire >20-30 minutes of fMRI data per participant to achieve reliable individual functional connectivity estimates [2]
• Behavioral Precision: For cognitive measures with high trial-level variability (e.g., inhibitory control), collect extensive trial counts (>60 minutes of testing) to achieve precise behavioral estimates [2]
• Individual-Specific Modeling: Use approaches like hyperalignment or individual-specific parcellations to account for unique brain organization patterns
• Multivariate Prediction: Apply machine learning models that combine information from multiple brain features to predict behavioral traits
• Reliability Assessment: Quantify test-retest reliability of both brain and behavioral measures to ensure sufficient precision for individual-level prediction

Applications: Particularly valuable for cognitive domains like inhibitory control that show poor prediction in standard BWAS but have high clinical relevance [2].

Diagram 2: Circuit-Based Framework. This workflow illustrates the transition from symptom-based diagnosis to circuit-focused assessment, intervention, and monitoring, highlighting essential methodologies at each stage.

The evidence from multiple emerging frameworks—coordinate network mapping, precision sampling, dynamical systems theory, and normative modeling—converges on a singular conclusion: the DSM's categorical architecture fundamentally misrepresents the organization of neural systems relevant to mental dysfunction. The incoherent mapping between DSM diagnoses and brain circuits reflects this fundamental category error rather than simply representing a measurement limitation.

For researchers and drug development professionals, this impasse necessitates a strategic reorientation toward target identification and clinical trial design that prioritizes circuit-based targets over diagnostic categories. The methodologies outlined in this whitepaper provide a roadmap for:

• Identifying transdiagnostic circuit dysfunction underlying multiple DSM conditions
• Parsing neurobiological heterogeneity within current diagnostic categories
• Developing biomarkers that track circuit-level changes rather than symptom counts
• Designating therapeutic targets based on causal network models rather than descriptive syndromes

The future of psychiatric research and therapeutic development lies in embracing these data-driven, circuit-focused approaches that align with, rather than contradict, the organizational principles of the human brain.

The data-driven exploratory approach to brain-behavior association research (BWAS) promises to uncover the neural underpinnings of cognition and psychopathology. However, this promise remains largely unfulfilled due to fundamental methodological challenges in replicability and generalizability. Replicability refers to the ability to obtain consistent results on repeated observations, while generalizability refers to the ability to apply results from one sample population to a target population of interest [87]. Within the context of brain-behavior research, these concepts present distinct but interconnected hurdles. A result may be replicable within held-out samples with similar sociodemographic characteristics yet lack generalizability across populations that differ by age, sex, geographical location, or socioeconomic status [87].

Recent empirical evidence has demonstrated that the historical standard of small sample sizes in neuroimaging (tens to a few hundred participants) is fundamentally inadequate for reproducible science [88] [87]. These underpowered samples exhibit large sampling variability, which refers to the variation in observed effect estimates across random samples taken from a population [87]. This variability all but guarantees erroneous published inference through false positives, false negatives, or inflated effect sizes [87]. The transition to large-scale datasets has revealed that true effect sizes in brain-wide association studies are substantially smaller than previously reported, necessitating samples numbering in the thousands for adequate statistical power [88] [87]. This paper provides a comprehensive technical guide to testing and ensuring replicability and generalizability within data-driven brain behavior research, with specific protocols, quantitative benchmarks, and visualization frameworks for implementation.

Quantitative Foundations: Effect Sizes and Sample Requirements

The Statistical Reality of Brain-Behavior Associations

The empirical foundation for current sample size requirements comes from analyses of large consortium datasets that have revealed the true distribution of effect sizes in brain-behavior relationships. Univariate associations between brain features and complex behavioral phenotypes typically fall in the range of r = 0.07 to 0.15, substantially smaller than previously estimated from underpowered studies [87]. The following table summarizes the maximum observed effect sizes for brain-behavior relationships across major neuroimaging datasets:

Table 1: Maximum Observed Effect Sizes Across Neuroimaging Datasets

Dataset	Sample Size	Behavioral Phenotype	Maximum Effect Size (r)	Minimum N for 80% Power
Human Connectome Project (HCP)	900	Fluid Intelligence	0.21	~150
ABCD Study	3,928	Fluid Intelligence	0.12	~540
UK Biobank	32,725	Fluid Intelligence	0.07	~1,596
ABCD Study	3,928	Mental Health Symptoms	~0.10	~780

The progression from HCP to UK Biobank demonstrates how observable effect sizes shrink as sample sizes increase, revealing the true magnitude of these relationships absent the inflation from sampling variability [87]. This phenomenon has critical implications for power calculations and study design. For mental health phenotypes, the effects are often even weaker than for cognitive measures, with correlations maximizing at approximately r = 0.10 in the ABCD Study sample of nearly 4,000 participants [87].

Statistical Error in Resampling Approaches

Recent data-driven approaches to replicability analysis have employed resampling techniques with large datasets, but these methods introduce their own statistical challenges. Burns et al. (2025) demonstrated that estimates of statistical errors obtained from resampling large datasets with replacement can produce significant bias when sampling close to the full sample size [88]. This bias emerges from random effects that distort error estimation in replicability frameworks. Their analysis revealed that future meta-analyses can largely avoid these biases by resampling no more than 10% of the full sample size, providing a crucial methodological guideline for replicability assessment in brain-wide association studies [88].

Methodological Protocols for Replicability Testing

Univariate Association Testing Framework

The standard framework for testing brain-behavior associations in mass-univariate studies involves correlational analysis across thousands of brain features with behavioral phenotypes. The following workflow details the replicability assessment protocol for such studies:

Diagram 1: Replicability Assessment Workflow

This protocol emphasizes the critical limitation identified by Burns et al. regarding resampling methodology. By restricting resampling to 10% of the full sample size, researchers can avoid the bias introduced by random effects when sampling with replacement close to the full sample size [88]. The distribution of effect sizes across iterations provides the sampling variability estimate necessary for replicability assessment.

Multivariate Prediction and Generalizability Testing

Multivariate machine learning approaches offer an alternative framework with different generalizability considerations. The following protocol details the testing of brain-based predictive models for mental health phenotypes:

Table 2: Multivariate Prediction Testing Protocol

Protocol Phase	Methodological Approach	Key Parameters	Generalizability Assessment
Data Partitioning	Stratified splitting by sociodemographic variables	Training (70%), Tuning (15%), Held-out Test (15%)	Ensure representative distribution across splits
Feature Selection	Domain-informed feature reduction	Cross-validation within training set only	Avoid selection bias through data leakage
Model Training	Regularized multivariate algorithms (elastic net, SVMs)	Hyperparameter optimization via nested CV	Monitor performance divergence across folds
Performance Validation	Hold-out set evaluation	AUROC, F1, R² with confidence intervals	Compare training vs. test performance degradation
External Validation	Application to completely independent dataset	Same metrics as primary validation	Quantify cross-population performance drop

Multivariate strategies have demonstrated improved replicability for cognitive variables such as intelligence, but this success has not extended equally to mental health phenotypes [87]. While these approaches may allow for replicable effects with moderately-sized samples, they still typically require large samples for model training, and prediction accuracy continues to improve with increasing sample size [87].

Domain Generalization Methodologies

The Scanner Bias Challenge in Neuroimaging

A critical domain shift challenge in neuroimaging emerges from technical variations across imaging platforms. Scanner-induced covariate shift has been identified as a fundamental threat to generalizability, with identical biological specimens producing different feature representations when scanned on different platforms [89]. This variation creates "invisible" acquisition factors that can inadvertently affect deep learning algorithms, potentially creating healthcare inequities as models behave differently across different scanners and laboratories [89].

Domain Generalization Techniques

The following diagram illustrates the strategic approaches to domain generalization in brain-behavior research:

Diagram 2: Domain Generalization Approaches

Domain generalization techniques are distinct from domain adaptation in that they use only source domain data without access to target data, which has significant regulatory implications for clinical translation [89]. This is particularly important for real-world deployment, as models can be applied robustly at new imaging centers without the need to collect data and labels or perform fine-tuning for each new site.

The Multi-Center Validation Framework

Empirical evidence from critical care deep learning models demonstrates the importance of diverse training data for generalizability. A comprehensive study using harmonized intensive care data from four databases across Europe and the United States found that model performance for predicting adverse events (mortality, acute kidney injury, and sepsis) dropped significantly when applied to new hospitals, sometimes by as much as 0.200 in AUROC [90]. However, models trained on multiple centers performed considerably better, with multicenter training resulting in more robust models than sophisticated computational approaches meant to improve generalizability [90].

Implementation: The Researcher's Toolkit

Essential Research Reagents and Computational Solutions

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Replicability and Generalizability

Tool Category	Specific Solutions	Function	Implementation Considerations
Data Harmonization	ricu R package, BBQS Standards Initiative	Cross-dataset vocabulary alignment and preprocessing	Ensure compatibility across data acquisition platforms and coding schemes
Quality Control	Data quality metrics, Exclusion criteria frameworks	Identify invalid records and inadequate data density	Apply consistent thresholds across sites (e.g., >6 hours ICU stay, measurements in ≥4 hourly bins)
Statistical Frameworks	Resampling with replacement, Bootstrap aggregation	Estimate sampling variability and replicability	Limit resampling to 10% of full sample size to avoid bias
Domain Generalization Architectures	HistoLite lightweight self-supervised framework, Dual-stream contrastive autoencoders	Learn domain-invariant representations	Balance model complexity with generalization capability
Performance Assessment	Representation shift metrics, Robustness index	Quantify domain shift impact	Compare embeddings across technical variants (e.g., scanners)

Standards and Reporting Frameworks

The Brain Behavior Quantification and Synchronization (BBQS) program represents a significant initiative to address generalizability challenges through standardization. This NIH BRAIN Initiative effort aims to develop tools for simultaneous, multimodal measurement of behavior and synchronize these data with simultaneously recorded neural activity [91]. The Working Group on Data Standards within BBQS focuses specifically on establishing and promoting adoption of data standards for novel sensors and multimodal data integration to facilitate FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) sharing and reuse of brain behavior data [92].

The path toward generalizable and replicable brain-behavior association research requires fundamental methodological shifts rather than incremental improvements. The empirical evidence clearly indicates that sample sizes numbering in the thousands are necessary for adequate statistical power given the small effect sizes that characterize these relationships [88] [87]. Furthermore, simply increasing sample size, while necessary, is insufficient to ensure generalizability. Scanner bias and other technical sources of domain shift can undermine model performance even in large datasets [89]. Multidisciplinary approaches that combine large-scale data collection, methodological rigor in resampling approaches, domain generalization techniques, and standardized data harmonization practices offer the most promising path forward for brain-behavior research that delivers on its promise of meaningful clinical translation.

Current classification systems for mental disorders, such as the DSM and ICD, provide a common symptomatic language for clinicians and researchers. However, they group biologically heterogeneous populations under single diagnostic labels, leading to suboptimal treatment outcomes. This "one-size-fits-all" approach is evident from the fact that more than a third of patients with major depressive disorder and approximately half with generalized anxiety disorder do not respond to first-line treatment [93]. The fundamental limitation of current systems is their poor biological validity, often grouping individuals with distinct biological alterations within a single diagnostic category [94]. This heterogeneity substantially contributes to failed clinical trials and hinders the development of novel therapeutics, as biologically mixed populations obscure meaningful clinical benefits [94].

The precision psychiatry paradigm addresses this limitation by proposing a framework that integrates quantitative biological and behavioral measurements with symptomatic presentations. This approach enables accurate stratification of heterogeneous populations into biologically homogeneous subpopulations and facilitates the development of mechanism-based treatments that transcend traditional diagnostic boundaries [94]. Circuit-based classifications represent a critical component of this framework, deriving quantitative measures from neurobiological dysfunctions to stratify patients. Unlike fully data-driven, unsupervised approaches that risk overfitting, theory-informed circuit scoring provides a tractable set of inputs grounded in neuroscientific principles, enhancing clinical translatability [93].

Core Evidence: Circuit-Based Biotypes in Depression and Anxiety

Identification and Validation of Six Distinct Biotypes

A landmark 2024 study demonstrated the feasibility of deriving circuit-based biotypes from functional neuroimaging data. The research utilized a standardized circuit quantification system to compute personalized, interpretable scores of brain circuit dysfunction in 801 treatment-free patients with depression and anxiety, along with 137 healthy controls [93]. The methodology employed both task-free and task-evoked functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to capture brain function across different states, analogous to cardiac imaging collected during both rest and stress conditions [93].

The analysis revealed six clinically distinct biotypes defined by unique profiles of intrinsic task-free functional connectivity within three core networks—default mode, salience, and frontoparietal attention circuits—combined with distinct patterns of activation and connectivity within frontal and subcortical regions elicited by emotional and cognitive tasks [93]. This multi-domain approach provided a more comprehensive characterization of neurobiological dysfunction than previous studies relying solely on task-free data.

Table 1: Characteristics of Patient Cohort and Validation Approach [93]

Aspect	Description
Cohort Size	801 patients with depression and anxiety; 137 healthy controls
Medication Status	95% unmedicated at time of baseline scanning
Primary Method	Standardized fMRI protocol across multiple studies
Circuit Measures	41 measures of activation/connectivity across 6 brain circuits
Validation Approach	Clinical validation against symptoms, behavioral tests, and treatment outcomes

Clinical and Behavioral Correlations of Biotypes

The six biotypes demonstrated significant differences in clinical symptom profiles and behavioral performance on computerized tests of general and emotional cognition [93]. This finding provides crucial evidence for the external validity of the biotypes, confirming that the neurobiological distinctions correspond to meaningful clinical differences. The association between specific circuit dysfunction profiles and behavioral performance patterns offers insights into the mechanisms underlying cognitive and emotional symptoms in depression and anxiety.

Most significantly, these biotypes showed differential responses to pharmacotherapy (escitalopram, sertraline, or venlafaxine extended release) and behavioral therapy (problem-solving with behavioral activation) in a subset of 250 participants who were randomized to treatment [93]. This finding represents a critical advance beyond previous studies that assessed biotype prediction of response to a single treatment, moving closer to the precision medicine goal of matching specific biotypes to their optimal treatments.

Methodological Framework: From Data Acquisition to Biotype Classification

Standardized Imaging and Processing Protocol

The foundation for reliable biotype classification lies in standardized data acquisition and processing. The "Stanford Et Cere Image Processing System" implemented a rigorous protocol for quantifying task-free and task-evoked brain circuit function at the individual participant level [93]. This system expressed circuit measures in standard deviation units from the mean of a healthy reference sample, making them interpretable for each individual—a crucial feature for clinical translation.

The imaging protocol incorporated multiple assessment modalities:

• Task-free fMRI: Measuring intrinsic functional connectivity within and between large-scale brain networks
• Task-evoked fMRI: Assessing activation and connectivity patterns during emotional and cognitive probes
• Structural MRI: Providing anatomical reference for functional data localization

This multi-modal approach captures both the brain's inherent organizational properties and its dynamic responses to specific challenges, offering complementary insights into circuit dysfunction mechanisms.

Data-Driven Signature Development with Rigorous Validation

The methodology for developing robust brain signatures follows a rigorous validation pipeline to ensure generalizability. A related approach in Alzheimer's disease research demonstrates the principle of using multiple cohorts for independent discovery and validation [75]. The technique involves:

• Discovery Phase: Using randomly selected subsets from a discovery cohort to compute regions of interest significantly associated with behavioral outcomes
• Consolidation Phase: Testing clusters from multiple discovery sets for voxelwise overlaps to identify consistent regions
• Validation Phase: Applying the derived signatures to completely independent cohorts to verify generalizability

This approach has demonstrated that computationally derived brain signatures can outperform traditional theory-based measures (e.g., hippocampal volume) in predicting clinical outcomes and classifying syndromes [75]. The union signature concept—combining multiple domain-specific signatures—has shown particularly strong associations with clinically relevant measures including episodic memory, executive function, and clinical dementia ratings [75].

Table 2: Essential Methodological Considerations for Circuit-Based Classification

Methodological Component	Key Requirements	Purpose
Sample Size	Hundreds to thousands of participants [28]	Ensure adequate statistical power and reproducibility
Multi-Modal Assessment	Task-free + task-evoked fMRI [93]	Capture complementary aspects of circuit function
Cross-Cohort Validation	Independent discovery and validation cohorts [75]	Verify generalizability of findings
Theory-Guided Features	A priori circuit hypotheses [93]	Enhance interpretability and clinical translation
Standardized Quantification	Normalization to healthy reference [93]	Enable individual participant-level interpretation

Figure 1: Experimental workflow for circuit-based biotyping, from participant recruitment through clinical validation.

Core Methodological Components

Implementing circuit-based classification requires specific methodological components, each serving a distinct function in the research pipeline:

• Standardized fMRI Acquisition Protocols: Identical scanning sequences across multiple sites and studies to ensure data compatibility and minimize technical variability [93].

• Theory-Informed Circuit Taxonomy: A priori definition of circuits based on neuroscientific literature, providing a constrained set of features that enhances interpretability and reduces overfitting compared to fully exploratory approaches [93].

• Personalized Circuit Scoring Algorithm: Computational methods for quantifying individual circuit function relative to normative reference data, expressed in standardized units for clinical interpretation [93].

• Cross-Domain Validation Framework: Multi-modal assessment linking circuit measures to symptoms, behavioral performance, and treatment outcomes to establish clinical validity [93].

• Data-Driven Signature Development: Statistical and computational techniques for discovering robust brain-behavior relationships that generalize across independent cohorts [75].

Statistical and Computational Considerations

Recent methodological research has highlighted critical considerations for brain-wide association studies. Data-driven resampling approaches used to estimate statistical power and replicability can produce biased estimates when resampling close to the full sample size due to compounded sampling variability [28]. This bias emerges because resampling involves two sources of sampling variability—first at the level of the large sample and again for the resampled replication sample [28].

To mitigate this bias, researchers should:

• Limit resampling to no more than 10% of the full sample size when estimating statistical errors [28]
• Employ significance thresholds that control for multiple comparisons, such as Bonferroni correction [28]
• Recognize that reproducing mass-univariate associations typically requires samples of tens of thousands of participants [28], suggesting that focused, theory-driven approaches with fewer features may be more feasible for many research contexts

Figure 2: Theoretical taxonomy guiding circuit-based biotyping, linking specific circuit measures to differential treatment responses.

Implications and Future Directions for Precision Psychiatry

Transforming Clinical Trials and Drug Development

Circuit-based classifications offer transformative potential for clinical trials and drug development in psychiatry. By stratifying biologically heterogeneous populations into more homogeneous subgroups, clinical trials can achieve greater statistical power to detect treatment effects and facilitate the development of targeted therapeutics [94]. This approach addresses the fundamental challenge in psychiatric drug development where biological heterogeneity in conventional diagnostic groups obscures meaningful treatment effects in large-scale trials.

The differential response of biotypes to specific pharmacological and behavioral interventions demonstrated in recent research [93] provides a template for designing enriched clinical trials. Future trials can use circuit-based biomarkers as stratification tools to identify patients most likely to respond to mechanism-based treatments, potentially increasing success rates and bringing novel therapeutics to market more efficiently.

Toward an Iterative Biology-Informed Framework

The Precision Psychiatry Roadmap (PPR) conceptualizes this transformation as a dynamic process that continuously incorporates new scientific evidence into a biology-informed framework for mental disorders [94]. This roadmap comprises three main components:

• Developing global alignment on principles and procedures across stakeholders
• Building consensus on the predictive validity from emerging data
• Operationalizing new knowledge into an evolving biology-informed framework

Implementation requires harmonization of research approaches across diagnostic populations and collaborative initiatives similar to the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium and ENIGMA consortium, which have successfully coordinated cross-disorder genomics and neuroimaging research [94]. The eventual goal is an evidence-based framework where quantitative biological and behavioral measurements complement symptom-based classification, enabling accurate stratification of heterogeneous populations and development of mechanism-based treatments across current diagnostic boundaries.

Table 3: Key Outcomes from Circuit-Based Classification Studies

Study	Primary Finding	Clinical Implications
Williams et al. (2024) [93]	Six circuit-based biotypes with distinct symptoms, behaviors, and treatment responses	Enables matching of specific biotypes to optimal treatments (pharmacological vs. behavioral)
Precision Psychiatry Roadmap (2025) [94]	Need for global alignment on biologically-informed framework	Provides roadmap for integrating biology into diagnostic systems for more targeted interventions
Data-Driven Gray Matter Signature (2024) [75]	Union signature outperforms traditional measures in classifying clinical syndromes	Demonstrates utility of computational approaches for robust biomarker development

Circuit-based classification represents a paradigm shift in how we conceptualize, diagnose, and treat mental disorders. By moving beyond symptomatic descriptions to quantify coherent neurobiological dysfunctions, this approach provides a path toward biologically valid stratification of patients. The identification of six distinct biotypes in depression and anxiety with unique symptom profiles, behavioral correlates, and differential treatment responses demonstrates both the feasibility and clinical utility of this approach.

The methodology—combining theory-informed circuit taxonomy with rigorous computational validation—provides a template for future research across psychiatric disorders. As the field progresses toward implementing the Precision Psychiatry Roadmap, circuit-based classifications will play an increasingly central role in creating a biology-informed framework for mental disorders. This transformation holds the promise of matching the right patients with the right treatments at the right time, ultimately improving outcomes for the millions worldwide affected by mental disorders.

Clinical trials in neuroscience face a unique convergence of biological, clinical, and operational complexities. Many central nervous system (CNS) disorders involve overlapping and heterogeneous pathologies, making it challenging to define disease boundaries and identify patients most likely to benefit from a specific therapeutic approach [95]. This biological variability affects how symptoms emerge and progress over time, often rendering traditional endpoints insensitive to real but subtle, early changes in disease status. The field is now undergoing a transformation, moving from traditional, rigid trials to adaptive, data-driven models that evolve in real time [95]. This shift is powered by the integration of data-driven biomarkers—objective, quantifiable indicators of biological or pathological processes—that provide a more precise and mechanistic understanding of disease progression and treatment response. The emergence of sophisticated technologies including artificial intelligence (AI), multi-omics analysis, and digital monitoring tools has created an unprecedented opportunity to embed these biomarkers throughout the clinical development pipeline, from early target identification to final endpoint validation [96].

Framed within the broader thesis of data-driven exploratory approaches to brain-behavior associations, this whitepaper argues that biomarker integration represents a fundamental shift in how we conceptualize and measure therapeutic efficacy in neurological and psychiatric disorders. By establishing quantitative links between molecular pathways, neural circuit function, and behavioral manifestations, data-driven biomarkers enable a more precise, patient-centered approach to drug development that bridges the historical gap between laboratory discoveries and meaningful clinical outcomes [71].

Categories and Applications of Data-Driven Biomarkers

Modern biomarker strategies in neuroscience drug development encompass multiple modalities, each offering distinct insights into disease mechanisms and therapeutic effects. The integration of these complementary approaches provides a multidimensional view of drug activity and patient response, enabling more informed decision-making throughout the clinical development process.

Table 1: Categories of Data-Driven Biomarkers in Neuroscience Trials

Category	Key Technologies	Primary Applications	Considerations
Digital Biomarkers	Wearable sensors, smartphone apps, passive monitoring [96]	Continuous, real-world assessment of motor function, sleep, cognition, and behavior [97] [96]	Regulatory validation, data privacy, signal processing complexity
Molecular & Imaging Biomarkers	PET, CSF analysis, qEEG, genotyping [96] [71]	Target engagement, pathological burden (e.g., tau, alpha-synuclein), disease subtyping [96]	Invasiveness, cost, accessibility, standardization across sites
AI-Derived Biomarkers	Multi-omics analysis, deep learning on neuroimaging, pattern recognition [96] [71]	Target identification, patient stratification, synthetic control arms, predictive modeling [96] [95]	Model interpretability, data quality requirements, computational resources

Digital Biomarkers and Remote Monitoring

Digital biomarkers, derived from sensors and connected devices, are revolutionizing outcome measurement by enabling continuous, objective assessment in patients' natural environments [96]. This approach moves beyond episodic clinic visits that provide only snapshots of function, capturing clinically meaningful fluctuations in motor activity, sleep patterns, speech characteristics, and cognitive function that traditional rating scales might miss. For conditions like Parkinson's disease, depression, and Alzheimer's disease, digital biomarkers can detect subtle changes in disease progression or treatment response earlier and with greater sensitivity than conventional clinical assessments [97]. The strategic implementation of these technologies helps reduce patient burden through remote assessments, potentially expanding trial access and improving retention—a critical advantage in long-term neurological studies [96] [95].

Molecular and Neuroimaging Biomarkers

Molecular and neuroimaging biomarkers provide crucial insights into disease pathology and therapeutic mechanisms. In neurodegenerative disease trials, biomarkers such as tau PET imaging, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis, and quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG) are increasingly used to demonstrate target engagement and provide biological evidence of disease modification [96]. These biomarkers enable more precise patient selection and stratification by identifying individuals with specific pathological profiles, thereby reducing clinical heterogeneity and increasing the likelihood of detecting treatment effects [95]. For example, in Alzheimer's disease trials, the integration of amyloid and tau biomarkers has been instrumental in ensuring study populations have the intended pathology, while in ALS research, emerging biomarkers targeting TDP-43 pathology are enabling more targeted therapeutic approaches [97].

AI and Integrative Analysis for Biomarker Discovery

Artificial intelligence, particularly machine learning and deep learning, is advancing biomarker discovery and application through its ability to identify complex patterns across massive, multimodal datasets [71]. AI approaches can integrate structural or functional characteristics of the brain, tabular data from electronic case report forms, genotyping, and lifestyle factors to identify novel biomarkers that transcend traditional diagnostic categories [71]. These methodologies align with the National Institute of Mental Health's Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework, which promotes dimensional and transdiagnostic approaches to understanding psychopathology [71]. Multi-view unsupervised learning frameworks, particularly deep learning models like multi-view Variational Auto-Encoders (mVAE), present promising solutions for integrating and analyzing these complex datasets to discover stable brain-behavior associations that might inform biomarker development [71].

Methodological Framework for Biomarker Development and Validation

The development of robust, clinically meaningful biomarkers requires a rigorous, systematic approach spanning from initial discovery to regulatory qualification. The following experimental protocols provide detailed methodologies for key phases of biomarker development.

Protocol: Interpretable Deep Learning for Brain-Behavior Association Discovery

This protocol outlines a method for identifying multimodal biomarkers linking neurobiological measures with behavioral or clinical scores using an interpretable deep learning framework, based on approaches successfully applied to cohorts like the Healthy Brain Network [71].

1. Objective: To discover stable, interpretable associations between brain measurements (e.g., cortical thickness from structural MRI) and clinical behavioral scores using a multi-view deep learning model that controls for confounding factors.

2. Materials and Reagents: Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for Brain-Behavior Association Studies

Item	Function/Application
Multi-view Variational Auto-Encoder (mVAE)	Learns joint latent representation of multimodal data (e.g., imaging + clinical scores) [71]
Digital Avatar Analysis (DAA) Framework	Interprets model by simulating subject-level perturbations to quantify brain-behavior relationships [71]
Stability Selection Procedure	Assesses and improves reproducibility of discovered associations across data resamples [71]
Structural MRI Data	Provides cortical measurements (thickness, surface area, volume) as neurobiological anchors [71]
Standardized Clinical Batteries	Quantifies behavioral, cognitive, and psychiatric symptoms across multiple domains [71]

3. Experimental Workflow:

• Data Preparation and Integration:

  • Curate multimodal dataset including structural MRI features and clinical behavioral scores.
  • Preprocess neuroimaging data using standard pipelines (e.g., FreeSurfer for cortical reconstruction).
  • Normalize clinical scores and handle missing data using appropriate imputation methods.

• Model Training and Latent Space Learning:

  • Implement a multi-view VAE (e.g., MoPoE-VAE) capable of learning both shared and view-specific latent representations.
  • Train the model to jointly encode imaging and clinical data into a lower-dimensional latent space that captures shared variance.
  • Use ensemble training with multiple random initializations to enhance robustness.

• Digital Avatar Analysis for Interpretation:

  • Generate "Digital Avatars" by applying controlled perturbations to behavioral scores of left-out subjects.
  • Use the trained generative model to simulate corresponding changes in brain measurements.
  • Perform linear regression analysis between perturbed scores and simulated brain features to quantify associations.

• Stability Assessment and Validation:

  • Apply stability selection across multiple data splits and model initializations.
  • Identify associations that consistently replicate across different training conditions.
  • Validate discovered relationships in independent cohorts where available.

Protocol: Validation of Digital Biomarkers for Clinical Endpoints

This protocol describes a method for establishing and validating digital biomarkers as potential clinical trial endpoints, particularly for neurodegenerative and psychiatric conditions.

1. Objective: To develop and validate sensor-derived digital biomarkers as objective, sensitive, and reliable measures of disease progression and treatment response in neurological disorders.

2. Materials and Reagents:

• Wearable sensors (accelerometers, gyroscopes, etc.)
• Smartphone-based assessment platforms
• Cloud infrastructure for data storage and processing
• Signal processing and machine learning algorithms for feature extraction
• Validation cohorts with parallel traditional clinical assessments

3. Experimental Workflow:

• Feature Discovery and Selection:

  • Collect high-frequency sensor data in controlled and free-living environments.
  • Extract candidate features across multiple domains (e.g., motility, sleep architecture, speech patterns).
  • Perform hypothesis-driven and exploratory analyses to identify features correlated with clinical measures.

• Technical Validation:

  • Establish test-retest reliability of digital features under stable clinical conditions.
  • Determine sensitivity to disease-specific impairments and changes over time.
  • Assess scalability and technical robustness across different devices and platforms.

• Clinical and Biological Validation:

  • Evaluate correlation with established clinical rating scales and patient-reported outcomes.
  • Assess ability to detect clinically meaningful differences between patient groups and healthy controls.
  • Determine sensitivity to change in interventional studies or longitudinal natural history studies.

• Regulatory Qualification:

  • Engage regulatory agencies early in the development process.
  • Generate evidence linking digital measures to clinically meaningful concepts.
  • Demonstrate reliability, reproducibility, and validity across multiple sites and populations.

Implementation Strategy: Integrating Biomarkers into Clinical Development

Successfully incorporating data-driven biomarkers into neuroscience drug development requires strategic planning across the entire clinical development pipeline. The following framework outlines key considerations for implementation.

Biomarker Selection and Trial Design Optimization

Effective biomarker integration begins with aligning biomarker selection with specific trial objectives and stage of development. Early-phase trials should prioritize biomarkers of target engagement and biological activity, while late-phase trials require biomarkers that can predict or detect clinically meaningful treatment effects [96]. Adaptive trial designs that allow for modification of biomarker strategies based on accumulating data can increase efficiency and likelihood of success. The use of biomarker-based stratification enables inclusion of more diverse populations while maintaining scientific clarity by tailoring inclusion criteria around biological or digital markers rather than broad demographic exclusions [95].

Operationalizing Biomarker Collection in Clinical Trials

Successfully implementing biomarker strategies requires addressing multiple operational challenges. Centralized specialist laboratories with standardized operating procedures are essential for ensuring consistency in sample handling and analysis for molecular biomarkers [96]. For digital biomarkers, device agnosticism, data security, and user-friendly interfaces are critical for patient compliance and data quality [96]. Cross-functional teams comprising biomarker specialists, clinical operations, data scientists, and regulatory affairs should be established early to ensure seamless execution. Additionally, patient engagement in protocol development can identify potential burdens associated with biomarker collection and lead to more practical and participant-friendly approaches [95].

Analytical Approaches and Data Integration

The complex, multidimensional nature of data-driven biomarkers requires sophisticated analytical approaches. Multi-view learning frameworks that can model the correlation structure between different data types (e.g., imaging, genetics, clinical scores) are particularly valuable for identifying latent representations that capture shared variance across modalities [71]. Stability selection methods help address reproducibility concerns by identifying associations that remain consistent across different data resamples and model initializations [71]. For regulatory acceptance, pre-specified analytical plans with appropriate adjustment for multiple testing are essential, particularly when exploring large numbers of potential digital features.

The integration of data-driven biomarkers represents a paradigm shift in neuroscience drug development, moving from symptomatic descriptions to mechanistic understanding of disease processes and therapeutic effects. By establishing quantitative links between molecular pathways, neural circuit function, and behavioral manifestations, biomarkers provide the essential bridge between biological innovation and meaningful clinical outcomes. The successful implementation of this approach requires collaboration across the entire ecosystem—including researchers, clinicians, patients, regulators, and technology developers—to establish validated, standardized biomarkers that can accelerate the development of transformative therapies for neurological and psychiatric disorders [95]. As computational power increases and analytical methods become more sophisticated, the vision of precision medicine in neuroscience—delivering the right treatment to the right patient at the right time—is becoming increasingly attainable through the strategic application of data-driven biomarkers.

Conclusion

The integration of data-driven exploratory approaches is fundamentally reshaping our understanding of brain-behavior associations. By moving beyond traditional, symptom-based categories toward frameworks derived directly from high-dimensional neural data, we can achieve more reproducible, biologically grounded models of brain function. The key takeaways underscore the necessity of precision methods to minimize noise, the power of multivariate and hybrid analytical models to maximize signal, and the critical importance of rigorous validation to overcome artifacts and ensure generalizability. For biomedical and clinical research, these advances pave the way for a future where psychiatric and neurological diagnoses are based on dysfunctional brain circuits rather than symptom clusters. This promises more personalized, effective therapeutics, accelerated drug repurposing, and a new generation of biomarkers for clinical trials, ultimately bridging the long-standing gap between neuroscience discovery and clinical application in mental health.

References

• 1. Reproducible brain-wide association studies require ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04492-9]
• 2. Using Precision Approaches to Improve Brain-Behavior ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12483401/]
• 3. Study design features increase replicability in brain-wide ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39604734/]
• 4. The ABCD study: understanding the development of risk for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7304245/]
• 5. HCP Young Adult - Connectome [https://www.humanconnectome.org/study/hcp-young-adult/data-releases]
• 6. Deep learning and whole-brain networks for biomarker ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-24702-4]
• 7. Integrating axis quantitative trait loci looks beyond cell ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-65643-w]
• 8. BrainEffeX: A web app for exploring fMRI effect sizes [https://apertureneuro.org/article/146251-braineffex-a-web-app-for-exploring-fmri-effect-sizes]
• 9. Integrating Genetic and Single‐Cell Genomic Data to Reveal ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12230629/]
• 10. Data-guided neuroimaging and visualization [https://apertureneuro.org/article/140427-data-guided-neuroimaging-and-visualization-from-functional-decomposition-to-dynamic-fusion]
• 11. BRAIN 2025: A Scientific Vision - BRAIN Initiative - NIH [http://braininitiative.nih.gov/vision/nih-brain-initiative-reports/brain-2025-scientific-vision]
• 12. A Data-Driven Approach to Understanding How the Brain Works [https://hai.stanford.edu/news/data-driven-approach-understanding-how-brain-works]
• 13. A data-driven latent variable approach to validating the ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-55831-z]
• 14. Natural language processing in clinical neuroscience and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9515453/]
• 15. Natural language processing algorithms for mapping clinical ... [https://jbiomedsem.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13326-020-00231-z]
• 16. The neurobiology of emotion–cognition interactions [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4344113/]
• 17. - Data Methods for Understanding Driven and... Brain Behavior [https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/9260/data-driven-methods-for-understanding-brain-behavior-and-restoring-its-pathophysiology/overview]
• 18. How the brain turns an experience into an emotion [https://www.npr.org/2025/05/29/nx-s1-5413276/how-the-brain-turns-an-experience-into-an-emotion]
• 19. Prefrontal cortex modulates visual and motor regions ... [https://www.news-medical.net/news/20251125/Prefrontal-cortex-modulates-visual-and-motor-regions-based-on-internal-feelings.aspx]
• 20. The role of cognitive load in automatic integration ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-12511-8]
• 21. Dancing brainwaves: How sound reshapes your brain ... | ScienceDaily [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/06/250602155001.htm]
• 22. The Rise and Fall of the Human Brain [https://www.acsh.org/news/2025/11/26/rise-and-fall-human-brain-49840]
• 23. Dense sampling approaches for psychiatry research: Combining scanners and smartphones - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10038886/]
• 24. Wearable fNIRS platform for dense sampling and precision functional neuroimaging | npj Digital Medicine [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-025-01690-3]
• 25. Precision Neuroscience: Dense Sampling of Individual Brains - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28817793/]
• 26. Applying dense-sampling methods to reveal dynamic endocrine modulation of the nervous system - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8975130/]
• 27. Developmental changes in dopamine-related ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878929325000891]
• 28. Bias in data-driven replicability analysis of univariate brain- ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-89257-w]
• 29. Multivariate Data Analysis for Neuroimaging Data [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3001346/]
• 30. Development of an explainable machine learning model ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221501612500336X]
• 31. Machine learning of large-scale multimodal brain imaging ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811922006498]
• 32. Brain Connectivity Toolbox [https://sites.google.com/site/bctnet/]
• 33. The choice-wide behavioral association study: data-driven ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10925091/]
• 34. NeuroMark: An automated and adaptive ICA based ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7509081/]
• 35. Searching Reproducible Brain Features using NeuroMark [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811924001125]
• 36. Cognitive and psychiatric relevance of dynamic functional ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11746149/]
• 37. Whole-Brain Functional Network Connectivity ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2021.682110/full]
• 38. Intra-Atlas Node Size Effects on Graph Metrics in fMRI Data [https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/24/3/814]
• 39. A novel 5D brain parcellation approach based on spatio ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9394484/]
• 40. Dynamic functional connectivity - Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_functional_connectivity]
• 41. Semiparametric Estimation of Task -Based Dynamic Functional ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6598619/]
• 42. Dynamic functional connectivity during task performance and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6401236/]
• 43. Task-based Dynamic Functional Connectivity: recent findings ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5797523/]
• 44. Dynamic functional connectivity during task performance ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811918321384]
• 45. Using deep clustering to improve fMRI dynamic functional ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811922004049]
• 46. Dynamic visual cortical connectivity analysis based on ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7375061/]
• 47. Motion impact score for detecting spurious brain-behavior ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-63661-2]
• 48. A Comparison of Static and Dynamic Functional ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-42090-4]
• 49. Drug repurposing for Alzheimer's disease: a Delphi ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12625010/]
• 50. Drug repurposing for Alzheimer's disease and other ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-56690-4]
• 51. Data-driven strategies for drug repurposing [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41283811/?utm_source=FeedFetcher&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=None&utm_content=0MUDgoX_3AKQ_8FjIHbDSim-inHbHvZmzgZIOj5My8q&fc=None&ff=20251124185841&v=2.18.0.post22+67771e2]
• 52. Network-based drug repurposing for psychiatric disorders ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666979X25002599]
• 53. Identifying compounds to treat opiate use disorder by ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-025-03721-9]
• 54. Task and resting state fMRI modelling of brain-behavior ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12593242/]
• 55. How measurement noise limits the accuracy of brain- ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-54022-6]
• 56. Frontiers | Physiological Noise in Brainstem fMRI [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00623/full]
• 57. Less is more: balancing noise reduction and data retention ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10773988/]
• 58. Sampling Rate Effects on Resting State fMRI Metrics [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2019.00279/full]
• 59. Benchmarking methods for mapping functional connectivity ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-025-02704-4]
• 60. THINGS-data, a multimodal collection of large-scale ... [https://elifesciences.org/articles/82580]
• 61. Improving standards in brain-behavior correlation analyses [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00119/full]
• 62. A measure of reliability convergence to select and optimize ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00114-4]
• 63. Reliability and stability challenges in ABCD task fMRI data [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811922001756]
• 64. Improving the reliability of cognitive task measures [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10440239/]
• 65. Longer scans boost prediction and cut costs in brain-wide ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09250-1]
• 66. Longer scans boost prediction and cut costs in brain-wide ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38405815/]
• 67. The effect of scan length on the reliability of resting-state ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4104183/]
• 68. The interpretation of computational model parameters ... [https://elifesciences.org/articles/75474]
• 69. Exploring functional connectivity at different timescales with ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2025.1653007/full]
• 70. Brain‐Behavior Associations During Interactions Between ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12408883/]
• 71. Interpretable and integrative deep learning for discovering ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-85032-5]
• 72. Comparison between gradients and parcellations for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10192836/]
• 73. Precision brain mapping: A new frontier in personalized ... [https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1106509]
• 74. Brain topography beyond parcellations: Local gradients of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811920311915]
• 75. A data‐driven, multi‐domain brain gray matter signature as a ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11584916/]
• 76. Peer review in The relationship between spatial ... [https://elifesciences.org/articles/32992/peer-reviews]
• 77. The research domain criteria framework in drug discovery for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7058263/]
• 78. Revisiting the seven pillars of RDoC - BMC Medicine [https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-022-02414-0]
• 79. A data-driven framework for mapping domains of human ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8761068/]
• 80. RDoC Framework Through the Lens of Predictive Processing [https://cpsyjournal.org/articles/10.5334/cpsy.119]
• 81. The data science future of neuroscience theory - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9637751/]
• 82. Diagnosis in Crisis: Has The DSM Failed and What Comes ... [https://www.betweensessions.org/p/diagnosis-in-crisis-has-the-dsm-failed]
• 83. Coordinate Network Mapping: An Emerging Approach for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12224197/]
• 84. Brain age gap reduction following exercise mirrors clinical ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12538700/]
• 85. Mapping subtype-specific disease epicenters and brain ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811925004124]
• 86. A dynamical systems framework for precision psychiatry [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-025-01984-6]
• 87. Replicability and generalizability in population psychiatric ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-024-01960-w]
• 88. Bias in data - driven replicability analysis of univariate brain -wide... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39972033/]
• 89. Lightweight self supervised learning framework for domain ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-20411-0]
• 90. The Impact of Multi-Institution Datasets on ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11469625/]
• 91. Brain Behavior Quantification and Synchronization Program [http://braininitiative.nih.gov/research/systems-neuroscience/brain-behavior-quantification-and-synchronization-program]
• 92. WG-Standards [https://brain-bbqs.org/working-groups/standards/]
• 93. Personalized brain circuit scores identify clinically distinct ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/11271415/]
• 94. towards a biology-informed framework for mental disorders [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-025-03070-5]
• 95. Reimagining Neuroscience Trials: Precision, Partnership ... [https://www.neurologylive.com/view//view/reimagining-neuroscience-trials-precision-partnership-progress]
• 96. Neuroscience Clinical Research Trends 2025 [https://tfscro.com/resources/neuroscience-clinical-research-trends-in-2025/]
• 97. Digital Biomarkers Summit 2025 [https://www.everythingals.org/summit2025]