I am finding the article frustrating to read, as the methods to derive the six networks is in an older paper [1][pdf link]
Its basically:
a) Use Neurosynth.org to perform metanalytic analysis associated with these search terms: “Default Mode, Salience, Attention, Threat,
Reward, and Cognitive Control" Neurosynth is awesome, check it out.
b) Resulting region pairs were quantified for intrinsic functional connectivity after regressing out task effects.
* I don't understand the word 'pairs' here since Neurosynth does not provide pairs of anything (i.e. ROI's), unless they mean pairs of voxels.
c) quote: then it gets really messy with : "o identify regions of interest (B) we considered the default mode, salience, and
attention circuits to be task-free and the negative affect, positive affect, and cognitive control
circuits to be task-evoked (details in Table S3). We refined our circuit features by first
excluding regions based on low tSNR and low fit to gray matter (C). We evaluated internal
consistency and excluded region pairs whose connectivity showed stronger associations
with out-of-circuit region pairs than within-circuit region pairs in our healthy sample (E).
From the resulting set of regions (E) we identified the subset implicated in hypothesized
dysfunction and derived circuit clinical scores references to a healthy sample (F; details in
Table S5)."
To be clear, I am not dissing the work..there were just a lot of steps they used to identify key regions of interest in size networks and then constrict those further to ones associated with depression and anxiety, and that process seems murky to me. This can totally be understandable situation: there are lots of decision that can be made in preprocessing and analysis, and not all get expanded on in a paper, and not an indication of p-hacking or anything.
Yes, but how did they define their nodes? The authors used maps from neurosynth, which are voxel-wise. They could be using voxels as nodes, but it seems unlikely to me.
Its basically: a) Use Neurosynth.org to perform metanalytic analysis associated with these search terms: “Default Mode, Salience, Attention, Threat, Reward, and Cognitive Control" Neurosynth is awesome, check it out.
b) Resulting region pairs were quantified for intrinsic functional connectivity after regressing out task effects. * I don't understand the word 'pairs' here since Neurosynth does not provide pairs of anything (i.e. ROI's), unless they mean pairs of voxels.
c) quote: then it gets really messy with : "o identify regions of interest (B) we considered the default mode, salience, and attention circuits to be task-free and the negative affect, positive affect, and cognitive control circuits to be task-evoked (details in Table S3). We refined our circuit features by first excluding regions based on low tSNR and low fit to gray matter (C). We evaluated internal consistency and excluded region pairs whose connectivity showed stronger associations with out-of-circuit region pairs than within-circuit region pairs in our healthy sample (E). From the resulting set of regions (E) we identified the subset implicated in hypothesized dysfunction and derived circuit clinical scores references to a healthy sample (F; details in Table S5)."
[1][pdf link] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9511971/pdf/nih...