Back

Objective Quality Assessment for Precision Functional MRI Data

Lynch, C. J.; Chang, M.; Elbau, I.; Gordon, E. M.; Laumann, T. O.; Du, J.; Ladwig, Z.; Lueckel, M.; Perez, D. C.; Summerville, I.; Chou, J.; Johnson, M.; Ho, C.; Manfredi, N.; Nilchian, P.; Solomonov, N.; Goldwaser, E.; Ng, T.; Moia, S.; Caballero-Gaudes, C.; Downar, J.; Vila-Rodriguez, F.; Gregory, E.; Daskalakis, Z. J.; Blumberger, D. M.; Kay, K.; Buchanan, D.; Williams, N.; Bhati, M. T.; Clauss, J.; Zebley, B.; Victoria, L. W.; Power, J. D.; Grosenick, L.; Gunning, F. M.; Liston, C.

2026-02-11 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.02.10.704857 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Precision functional mapping (PFM) enables individual-level characterization of brain network organization but requires substantially more and higher-quality fMRI data than is standard. Despite its growing use, objective criteria for data sufficiency and quality needed to ensure interpretable and replicable individual-level results remain unclear. Here, we introduce the Network Similarity Index (NSI), an objective measure of the extent to which functional connectivity (FC) patterns in an individual dataset express the large-scale network structure required for PFM. NSI captures the integrity of low-spatial-frequency, coherent network organization and denoising fidelity, and aligns closely with blinded expert assessments of PFM usability. NSI also accounts for variability in the rate at which FC becomes reliable across individuals. Here, we provide an open-source framework for NSI-based data quality evaluation and models for linking NSI values with expert-judged PFM suitability. This framework can also inform expected returns from additional data collection, enabling principled decisions about data sufficiency and replication in precision fMRI research.

Published in Neuron (predicted rank #17) · training set

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.