Extended Data Fig. 5: Comparison of FC between CCP and MCP groups at edge and network levels.
From: Brain–phenotype models fail for individuals who defy sample stereotypes
Edges, GFC: t statistics for each GFC edge found to significantly differ (via two-sample t-test) between groups (P < 0.05, FDR adjusted), ordered by network. Red, CCP>MCP; Blue, MCP>CCP. Networks, GFC: mean t statistics for each network pair (using GFC) found to significantly differ (via Constrained NBS133) between groups (one-tailed P < 0.025, FDR adjusted). Red, CCP>MCP; Blue, MCP>CCP. Significant edges across tasks and Significant networks across tasks: Number of times (i.e., tasks for which) edge (ordered by network) or network pair was significantly greater for CCP than MCP – number of times edge or network pair was significantly greater for MCP than CCP. Mean GFC, CCP and Mean GFC, MCP: GFC, averaged across participants within each group; main diagonal set to 0, and nodes ordered by network. Note that CCP and MCP groups differ for each phenotypic measure and in-scanner task (range of number of participants using GFC across phenotypic measures: CCP = 46-81, MCP = 23-63). Black dashed lines separate networks: 1 = medial frontal, 2 = frontoparietal, 3 = default mode, 4 = motor, 5 = visual A, 6 = visual B, 7 = visual association, 8 = salience, 9 = subcortical, 10 = cerebellum (for network visualization, see140).
