Brain-Behavior Modeling from Multimodal MRI using Opportunistic Pretraining and Common-Cohort Adaptation
Authors: Md. Tanvir Rahman, Taslima Ferdaus Shuva, Nabil Anan Orka, Asaduzzaman Khan, Mohammad Ali Moni
Organizations: School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, QLD, 4072, Australia · Department of Information and Communication Technology, Mawlana Bhashani Science and Technology University, Tangail, 1902, Bangladesh · Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Daffodil International University, Daffodil Smart City (DSC), Birulia, Savar, Dhaka, 1216, Bangladesh · Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, 10029, NY, USA · AI and Cyber Futures Institute, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, 2795, New South Wales, Australia · Rural Health Research Institute, Charles Sturt University, Orange, 2800, New South Wales, Australia
Incomplete imaging coverage limits sample sizes for multimodal cognitive prediction. We evaluated a two-stage opportunistic deep ensemble using baseline Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study data to predict fluid, crystallized, and total cognition. Separate neural models processed structural/diffusion, resting-state, and task-based MRI data with covariates. Models were pretrained on eligible modality cohorts (up to 9,686 participants), adapted to common training cohorts, and fused via Ridge regression (trimodal cohort: 4,216 participants). Five-fold family-aware cross-validation compared this approach against constituent and covariate-only models. Two-stage training increased mean test coefficient of determination (R^2) in 24 of 27 comparisons (median gain: 0.0081). Fusion increased mean R^2 by 0.0051-0.0333 over the strongest constituent and reduced mean absolute error by 0.0067-0.0976. Task-plus-resting-state and trimodal ensembles reduced absolute error across all targets (nominal p <= 0.0108). Task-plus-resting-state fusion achieved the highest mean R^2 for fluid (0.2222) and total cognition (0.3665), while structural-plus-resting-state led for crystallized cognition (0.3706), yielding R^2 gains of 0.0805, 0.1180, and 0.0890 over covariate-only references. Ablations showed expanded pretraining drove most improvements. Gradient-based attribution identified target-dependent input patterns. These findings support using partially observed cohorts for model development to achieve modest fusion gains. Pending external validation, this approach may support MRI-informed cognitive phenotyping.
Figures & tables
Characteristic
Struct
Task
Rest
Struct+Task
Struct+Rest
Task+Rest
All Modalities
Sample Information
Subjects ( n )
9,686
7,287
5,555
6,845
5,344
4,356
4,216
Families ( n )
8,238
6,405
4,901
6,015
4,712
3,921
3,789
Demographics & Anthropometrics
Age (months)
119.1 ± 7.5
119.5 ± 7.5
119.8 ± 7.5
119.6 ± 7.5
119.8 ± 7.5
120.1 ± 7.5
120.1 ± 7.5
BMI
18.7 ± 4.1
18.6 ± 3.9
18.3 ± 3.7
18.5 ± 3.9
18.3 ± 3.7
18.2 ± 3.7
18.2 ± 3.6
Table 1: Participant demographics, MRI characteristics, and cognitive scores following fold-based imputation.
Figure 1: Modality-specific architectures for cognitive prediction. (a) IntelliGNN processes a population-level graph with 94 regional nodes, target-specific structural and diffusion feature masks, edge attributes, and learned node embeddings. Covariates are incorporated before attention pooling and again at the regression head. (b) SPRN processes selected resting-state connectivity and regional variance features through projected residual layers, followed by covariate concatenation at the output head. (c) MAC-Net processes regional N-back and MID measurements and concatenates covariates at the output head. Each branch is fitted separately for Gf , Gc , and Gt to predict a transformed cognitive target; outputs are inverse-transformed before score-scale evaluation and fusion. Models are trained independently and do not share a latent representation.
Figure 2: Overview of the dynamic multimodal late-fusion pipeline. Structural (sMRI), resting-state (rsfMRI), and task (tfMRI) modalities are processed independently using dedicated deep learning architectures (IntelliGNN, SPRN, and MAC-Net). Following modality-specific two-stage training, predictions for the common validation participants are extracted to calibrate the fusion weights. Prediction-level fusion is performed using a RidgeCV meta-regressor, which employs an internal 5-fold cross-validation strategy on the validation set. This internal loop selects the L2 regularization penalty while keeping family members together within each split. The validation partition is also used for neural checkpoint selection, so the fusion procedure constitutes validation-set blending. The dynamically regularized coefficients are then applied to the hold-out test predictions to generate the final unified cognitive prediction.
Configuration
Common train
Common validation
Common test
IntelliGNN train
MAC-Net train
SPRN train
sMRI+rsfMRI
3,426.2
849.0
1,068.8
7,578.0
—
3,629.6
sMRI+tfMRI
4,381.6
1,094.4
1,369.0
7,054.0
4,805.4
—
tfMRI+rsfMRI
2,793.6
691.2
871.2
—
5,616.6
3,925.0
sMRI+tfMRI+rsfMRI
2,698.6
674.2
843.2
7,953.8
5,657.0
3,966.2
Table 2: Mean participant counts per outer fold. Common training, validation, and test participants belong to the configuration-specific intersection cohort. Architecture-specific Stage 1 pools include eligible common training participants and additional modality-eligible participants after exclusion of held-out families. Values are averages across five folds and are reported to one decimal place.
Target
Cohort
Ridge
Lasso
Elastic Net
Random forest
MLP
Gf
sMRI
0.1899 ± 0.0153
0.1888 ± 0.0144
0.1854 ± 0.0126
0.1686 ± 0.0089
0.1857 ± 0.0144
rsfMRI
0.1710 ± 0.0191
0.1726 ± 0.0185
0.1720 ± 0.0182
0.1569 ± 0.0165
0.1622 ± 0.0207
tfMRI
0.1535 ± 0.0053
0.1522 ± 0.0055
0.1509 ± 0.0043
0.1303 ± 0.0138
0.1495 ± 0.0066
sMRI+rsfMRI
0.1730 ± 0.0191
0.1734 ± 0.0188
0.1728 ± 0.0187
0.1554 ± 0.0174
0.1672 ± 0.0275
sMRI+tfMRI
0.1448 ± 0.0158
0.1479 ± 0.0187
0.1485 ± 0.0182
0.1268 ± 0.0229
0.1411 ± 0.0177
tfMRI+rsfMRI
0.1411 ± 0.0265
0.1417 ± 0.0261
0.1403 ± 0.0251
0.1175 ± 0.0226
0.1322 ± 0.0287
Table 3: Covariate-only R2 across targets and eligibility cohorts.
Target
Branch
R2
Pearson r
MSE
MAE
ΔR2 (cov.)
Gf
IntelliGNN
0.2023 ± 0.0153
0.4530 ± 0.0134
86.8566 ± 2.3671
7.3535 ± 0.0929
+0.0124
SPRN
0.1978 ± 0.0295
0.4521 ± 0.0297
81.3778 ± 5.2820
7.1445 ± 0.2368
+0.0252
MAC-Net
0.2007 ± 0.0208
0.4535 ± 0.0186
73.2790 ± 4.1989
6.7683 ± 0.2165
+0.0472
Gc
IntelliGNN
0.3166 ± 0.0176
0.5635 ± 0.0162
33.1018 ± 0.8867
4.4649 ± 0.0607
+0.0146
SPRN
0.3576 ± 0.0143
0.6030 ± 0.0159
28.5155 ± 1.9414
4.1737 ± 0.1500
+0.0729
MAC-Net
0.3114 ± 0.0113
0.5591 ± 0.0103
29.5441 ± 1.3299
4.2313 ± 0.0841
+0.0486
Table 4: Unimodal brain-plus-covariate performance. Bold values indicate the best-performing architecture for a given metric within each cognitive target (highest for R2 , Pearson r, and ΔR2 ; lowest for MSE and MAE).
Cohort
Base model
Gf
Gc
Gt
sMRI+rsfMRI
IntelliGNN
0.1741 → 0.1822
0.2801 → 0.2934
0.2861 → 0.2950
SPRN
0.2075 → 0.2119
0.3573 → 0.3609
0.3513 → 0.3513
sMRI+tfMRI
IntelliGNN
0.1517 → 0.1551
0.2596 → 0.2620
0.2565 → 0.2695
MAC-Net
0.2052 → 0.2036
0.3065 → 0.3100
0.3331 → 0.3358
tfMRI+rsfMRI
SPRN
0.1664 → 0.1747
0.3260 → 0.3242
0.3045 → 0.3155
MAC-Net
0.1744 → 0.1977
0.2892 → 0.3086
0.3167 → 0.3345
Table 5: Mean test R2 for common-only neural training and the complete two-stage strategy within each multimodal cohort. Each comparison uses the same configuration-specific test participants. The two-stage results include opportunistic pretraining, common-cohort adaptation, and validation-based checkpoint selection; the comparison does not isolate adaptation alone.
Target
Cohort
R2
Pearson r
MSE
MAE
Gf
sMRI+rsfMRI
0.2216 ± 0.0146
0.4773 ± 0.0185
78.3221 ± 2.6582
7.0037 ± 0.1642
sMRI+tfMRI
0.2095 ± 0.0175
0.4581 ± 0.0195
71.7956 ± 3.5191
6.7300 ± 0.1362
tfMRI+rsfMRI
0.2222 ± 0.0202
0.4743 ± 0.0211
68.6384 ± 4.2938
6.5746 ± 0.2131
sMRI+tfMRI+rsfMRI
0.2211 ± 0.0174
0.4719 ± 0.0169
68.7092 ± 3.1316
6.5962 ± 0.1703
Gc
sMRI+rsfMRI
0.3706 ± 0.0162
0.6108 ± 0.0140
27.6907 ± 1.5092
4.1229 ± 0.1054
sMRI+tfMRI
0.3167 ± 0.0179
0.5632 ± 0.0163
29.2300 ± 1.5637
4.2356 ± 0.0979
Table 6: Multimodal ensemble performance using validation-set Ridge blending with internal family-grouped penalty selection.
Target
Cohort
Best base
ΔR2
Δr
Δ MSE
Δ MAE
p -value
Gf
sMRI+rsfMRI
SPRN
+0.0097
+0.0146
-0.9566
-0.0547
0.0012
sMRI+tfMRI
MAC-Net
+0.0059
+0.0040
-0.5293
-0.0138
0.0802
tfMRI+rsfMRI
MAC-Net
+0.0245
+0.0252
-2.1959
-0.0914
¡0.0001
sMRI+tfMRI+rsfMRI
MAC-Net
+0.0160
+0.0159
-1.4104
-0.0526
0.0108
Gc
sMRI+rsfMRI
SPRN
+0.0097
+0.0089
-0.4382
-0.0182
0.0626
sMRI+tfMRI
MAC-Net
+0.0067
+0.0042
-0.2874
-0.0116
0.0597
Table 7: Within-cohort fusion gains and family-aware statistical significance testing. Δ values represent the ensemble mean minus the strongest constituent base mean. Positive values for R2 and Pearson r indicate predictive improvement; negative values for MSE and MAE indicate error reduction. The p -values are from one-sided family-aware sign-flipping tests of paired absolute-error differences and are interpreted as nominal evidence across the 12 comparisons.
Figure 3: Mean predictive performance across training and fusion procedures for selected bimodal configurations: sMRI+rsfMRI for fluid and crystallized cognition and tfMRI+rsfMRI for total cognition. Panels show R2 , Pearson correlation, MSE, and MAE. The isolated unimodal points were obtained from the corresponding modality-eligible cohorts and therefore involve different participants. Common-only, two-stage, and ensemble points within a configuration share its test partitions. The two-stage points represent the complete opportunistic training and checkpoint-selection procedure, not an isolated adaptation effect. Dashed lines show the corresponding covariate benchmark. Differences are descriptive means across five folds; complete variability estimates are provided in the tables.
Target
Cohort
sMRI
rsfMRI
tfMRI
Gf
sMRI+rsfMRI
0.438
0.644
—
sMRI+tfMRI
0.240
—
0.764
tfMRI+rsfMRI
—
0.397
0.683
sMRI+tfMRI+rsfMRI
0.085
0.402
0.634
Gc
sMRI+rsfMRI
0.374
0.737
—
sMRI+tfMRI
0.271
—
0.758
Table 8: Mean signed RidgeCV coefficients for prediction-level fusion. Coefficients act on score-scale predictions without additional standardization.
Figure 4: Explainability and late-fusion summaries for the selected multimodal pipelines across fluid ( Gf ), crystallized ( Gc ), and total ( Gt ) cognition. Column 1 displays the top six neuroanatomical and connectomic features ranked using cross-fold composite gradient-based attribution scores. Feature scores were normalized separately within each constituent branch from Integrated Gradients (IG), signed Saliency, and Input × Gradient; their displayed magnitudes do not quantify relative importance across modalities. Column 2 displays grouped covariate scores, obtained by summing categorical indicator scores and min–max normalizing the grouped values; scanner identity has the highest score in the displayed configurations. Column 3 presents agreement among method-specific attribution magnitudes, with high correlation ( r>0.95 ) between IG and Input × Gradient, and distinct patterns for Saliency. This agreement describes method-specific consistency rather than independent validation of the extracted features. Column 4 displays the cross-fold mean signed RidgeCV coefficients acting on score-scale modality-specific predictions, rounded to two decimal places. These coefficients are not normalized proportions and do not represent percentages of explained variance.
Target
Modality
Model
Adaptation Regime
R2
Pearson r
MSE
MAE
Gf
tfMRI+rsfMRI
MAC-Net
S1 Only
0.2000 ± 0.0177
0.4509 ± 0.0191
70.6238 ± 4.7386
6.6545 ± 0.2285
S2 Unfrozen
0.2001 ± 0.0184
0.4506 ± 0.0198
70.6216 ± 4.8065
6.6581 ± 0.2366
S2 Frozen (Prop.)
0.1977 ± 0.0177
0.4491 ± 0.0187
70.8343 ± 4.8362
6.6660 ± 0.2357
SPRN
S1 Only
0.1713 ± 0.0376
0.4297 ± 0.0286
73.0565 ± 4.2562
6.8135 ± 0.2146
S2 Unfrozen
0.1724 ± 0.0356
0.4295 ± 0.0286
72.9624 ± 4.1268
6.8093 ± 0.2070
S2 Frozen (Prop.)
0.1747 ± 0.0346
0.4305 ± 0.0281
72.7745 ± 4.2558
6.7952 ± 0.2165
Table 9: Ablation analysis across optimal target configurations under 5-fold cross-validation. Metrics reflect unweighted means ± standard deviations across outer test folds. Bold values indicate the best-performing metric within each ablation group for its modality.
Architecture
Atlas
Regions
IntelliGNN & MAC-Net
Desikan-Killiany
Cortical (68 nodes, Bilateral): Banks Superior Temporal Sulcus, Caudal Anterior Cingulate, Caudal Middle Frontal, Cuneus, Entorhinal, Fusiform, Inferior Parietal, Inferior Temporal, Isthmus Cingulate, Lateral Occipital, Lateral Orbitofrontal, Lingual, Medial Orbitofrontal, Middle Temporal, Parahippocampal, Paracentral, Pars Opercularis, Pars Orbitalis, Pars Triangularis, Pericalcarine, Postcentral, Posterior Cingulate, Precentral, Precuneus, Rostral Anterior Cingulate, Rostral Middle Frontal, Superior Frontal, Superior Parietal, Superior Temporal, Supramarginal, Frontal Pole, Temporal Pole, Transverse Temporal, Insula.
Table S1: Brain regions and parcellations utilized within each modality-specific architecture.
Task
Category
Conditions / Contrasts
N-back
Conditions
(1) 0-back, (2) 2-back, (3) Place, (4) Emotion.
Contrasts
(5) 2-back vs 0-back, (6) Face vs Place, (7) Emotion vs Neutral, (8) Negative vs Neutral, (9) Positive vs Neutral.
MID
Contrasts
(10) Anticipation Large vs Small Loss, (11) Anticipation Loss vs Neutral, (12) Anticipation Large Reward vs Neutral, (13) Anticipation Large Loss vs Neutral, (14) Reward Positive vs Negative Feedback, (15) Loss Positive vs Negative Feedback, (16) Anticipation Small Reward vs Neutral, (17) Anticipation Small Loss vs Neutral, (18) Anticipation Reward vs Neutral, (19) Anticipation Large vs Small Reward.
Table S2: Task conditions and behavioral contrasts provided in exact model input order for MAC-Net (tfMRI).
Table S4c: Brain-plus-covariate predictive performance for total cognition ( Gt ). U: unimodal; C: common-cohort-only training; TS: two-stage opportunistic training.
Target
Cohort
Model
Rank
Covariate
Sign
Score
Cryst
T+R
MACNET
1
MRI Device Serial Number
-
1.0000
Cryst
T+R
MACNET
2
Sex
-
0.1363
Cryst
T+R
MACNET
3
Age
+
0.1199
Cryst
T+R
MACNET
4
Highest Parental Education
+
0.0872
Cryst
T+R
MACNET
5
Total Intracranial Brain Volume
+
0.0545
Cryst
T+R
MACNET
6
Combined Family Income
+
0.0520
Table S5: Grouped covariate importance rankings across models and targets. Directions (signs) denote the sums of raw mean Integrated Gradients (IG); overall group magnitude scales with categorical count.
Target
Cohort
Model
Rank
Feature
Sign
Score
Cryst
S+R
INTELLIGNN
1
L. Fusiform [Sulcal Depth]
-
1.0000
Cryst
S+R
INTELLIGNN
2
L. Fusiform [T2 Gray/White Contrast]
+
0.7050
Cryst
S+R
INTELLIGNN
3
L. Fusiform [Volume]
-
0.5475
Cryst
S+R
INTELLIGNN
4
R. Fusiform [Sulcal Depth]
-
0.4257
Cryst
S+R
INTELLIGNN
5
L. Cerebellar Cortex [Volume]
-
0.3824
Cryst
S+R
INTELLIGNN
6
L. Fusiform [T1 White]
-
0.3459
Table S6a: Top 10 specific structural and diffusion-derived (sMRI) features ranked by composite importance score.
Target
Cohort
Model
Rank
Node
Sign
Score
Cryst
S+R
INTELLIGNN
1
L. Fusiform
-
3.3790
Cryst
S+R
INTELLIGNN
2
R. Fusiform
-
1.6270
Cryst
S+R
INTELLIGNN
3
L. Superior Temporal
-
0.8183
Cryst
S+R
INTELLIGNN
4
R. Inferior Temporal
-
0.6921
Cryst
S+R
INTELLIGNN
5
R. Superior Temporal
-
0.6838
Cryst
S+R
INTELLIGNN
6
L. Inferior Temporal
-
0.6415
Table S6b: Top 10 structural (sMRI) nodes, aggregated across multiple regional morphometric and microstructural features.
Target
Cohort
Model
Rank
Edge
Sign
Score
Cryst
T+R
SPRN
1
R. Visual ↔ R. Retrosplenial Temporal
+
0.8647
Cryst
T+R
SPRN
2
L. SM Hand ↔ L. None
-
0.7789
Cryst
T+R
SPRN
3
R. Ventral Attention ↔ R. Visual
+
0.7747
Cryst
T+R
SPRN
4
R. None ↔ R. Retrosplenial Temporal
+
0.7502
Cryst
T+R
SPRN
5
L. SM Hand ↔ R. SM Hand
-
0.7348
Cryst
T+R
SPRN
6
L. Default ↔ L. Default
+
0.7235
Table S7a: Top 10 global resting-state functional connectivity (rsfMRI) edges (highways) ranked by composite importance score.
Target
Cohort
Model
Rank
Node
Sign
Score
Cryst
T+R
SPRN
1
L. Default
+
15.5405
Cryst
T+R
SPRN
2
L. Ventral Attention
-
14.4449
Cryst
T+R
SPRN
3
R. Visual
+
13.3295
Cryst
T+R
SPRN
4
L. Dorsal Attention
-
12.7716
Cryst
T+R
SPRN
5
R. Default
+
11.8552
Cryst
T+R
SPRN
6
L. Cingulo-Parietal
+
11.4609
Table S7b: Top 10 resting-state (rsfMRI) nodes (hubs), aggregated across all incident connectivity edges and regional variance.
Target
Cohort
Model
Rank
Feature
Sign
Score
Cryst
T+R
SPRN
1
FC Edge: R. Visual ↔ R. Retrosplenial Temporal
+
0.8647
Cryst
T+R
SPRN
2
FC Edge: L. SM Hand ↔ L. None
-
0.7789
Cryst
T+R
SPRN
3
FC Edge: R. Ventral Attention ↔ R. Visual
+
0.7747
Cryst
T+R
SPRN
4
FC Edge: R. None ↔ R. Retrosplenial Temporal
+
0.7502
Cryst
T+R
SPRN
5
FC Edge: L. SM Hand ↔ R. SM Hand
-
0.7348
Cryst
T+R
SPRN
6
FC Edge: L. Default ↔ L. Default
+
0.7235
Table S7c: Top 10 specific resting-state (rsfMRI) features, including individual functional connectivity edges and regional signal variance.
Target
Cohort
Model
Rank
Connection
Sign
Score
Cryst
T+R
SPRN
1
L. Default ↔ R. Default
+
0.3931
Cryst
T+R
SPRN
2
L. Ventral Attention ↔ R. Dorsal Attention
-
0.3831
Cryst
T+R
SPRN
3
L. Ventral Attention ↔ L. Dorsal Attention
-
0.3343
Cryst
T+R
SPRN
4
R. Dorsal Attention ↔ R. Default
+
0.1868
Cryst
T+R
SPRN
5
L. Dorsal Attention ↔ R. Dorsal Attention
-
0.1811
Cryst
T+R
SPRN
6
L. Ventral Attention ↔ L. Visual
-
0.1255
Table S7d: Top intrinsic resting-state (rsfMRI) functional connections restricted strictly to the top 10 highest-ranked nodes.
Target
Cohort
Model
Rank
Node
Sign
Score
Cryst
T+R
MACNET
1
R. Precentral
-
4.4897
Cryst
T+R
MACNET
2
L. Pars Opercularis
-
3.3357
Cryst
T+R
MACNET
3
L. Superior Parietal
-
3.2978
Cryst
T+R
MACNET
4
L. Precentral
-
3.2268
Cryst
T+R
MACNET
5
L. Lingual
+
3.1179
Cryst
T+R
MACNET
6
L. Banks Superior Temporal Sulcus
-
2.9984
Table S8a: Top 10 functional task (tfMRI) nodes, aggregated across all conditions and contrasts.
Target
Cohort
Model
Rank
Feature
Sign
Score
Cryst
T+R
MACNET
1
R. Precentral [MID: Ant. Loss vs Neut]
-
0.9530
Cryst
T+R
MACNET
2
R. Precentral [MID: Ant. Small Loss vs Neut]
-
0.9477
Cryst
T+R
MACNET
3
R. Pars Triangularis [N-back: 0-back]
-
0.6803
Cryst
T+R
MACNET
4
R. Caudal Anterior Cingulate [N-back: 2-back vs 0-back]
+
0.6771
Cryst
T+R
MACNET
5
L. Pars Opercularis [N-back: 2-back]
-
0.6415
Cryst
T+R
MACNET
6
L. Superior Parietal [N-back: 2-back]
-
0.6284
Table S8b: Top 10 specific functional task (tfMRI) features, defined by distinct region-contrast pairings.
Objective cognitive assessment from neural signals supports neurorehabilitation, but individual-level prediction from task-based fMRI (tfMRI) remains difficult because neural features coexist with substantial demographic and scanner-related variation. We present the Multi-task Activation and Contrast Network (MAC-Net), a covariate-aware deep learning framework for modeling individual cognitive function from regional tfMRI. By isolating tfMRI features into a dedicated neural pathway and restricting participant variables to a terminal late-fusion pathway, MAC-Net prevents dominant covariates from suppressing high-dimensional clinical representations during feature learning. Evaluating baseline data from 6,500 Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study participants under family-aware cross-validation, MAC-Net was benchmarked against linear models, random forests, and alternative deep architectures. The N-back plus Monetary Incentive Delay configuration achieved R2 values of 0.174, 0.238, and 0.277 for fluid, crystallized, and total cognition, outperforming covariate-only baselines (0.178) and alternative deep models (0.217). N-back was the most informative paradigm, whereas incorporating the Stop Signal Task marginally degraded performance. Feature attributions via Integrated Gradients, DeepLIFT, and Input Gradient were highly concordant, localizing working-memory-related frontal, parietal, and cingulate regions. These findings demonstrate that covariate-aware multi-task modeling yields reproducible cognitive-function estimations, establishing a robust neural engineering framework for clinical translation.
School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, QLD 4072, Australia · Department of Information and Communication Technology, Mawlana Bhashani Science and Technology University, Tangail 1902, Bangladesh
Brain foundation models (BFMs) are self-supervised Transformers pretrained on fMRI data. We posit that these models should capture each subject's cognitive performance from their fMRI signal. Yet across three state-of-the-art BFMs and every readout we test, they predict cognition worse than a linear regression from the ∼80K parameters of the functional connectivity matrix (FC). The gap widens with scale: BrainLM's 650M model predicts cognition worse than its 111M. We attribute this to a variance allocation problem: BFM pretraining captures the variance components that dominate fMRI but not the higher-order structure that predicts cognition. Our per-cumulant analysis of the reconstructed signal shows that the second-order covariance is partially preserved, while the third-order co-skewness tensor is largely destroyed. To recover what BFMs lose, we design a linear pipeline that projects the fMRI signal into the subspace that best preserves its co-skewness and computes FC there. This exceeds raw FC and every pretrained BFM on every dataset and parcellation we test, outperforming prior state-of-the-art under controlled evaluation with no pretraining and no GPU. We recover the raw-FC ceiling on BrainLM's forward pass by finetuning with a loss targeted at this same subspace. This shows that the bottleneck is the pretraining objective, not the architecture or the model size.
Giovanni Marraffini, Gabriel Mahuas, Trinidad Borrell +2
Inria Saclay Île-de-France, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Palaiseau, France · Sigma Nova · Sorbonne Université, Institut du Cerveau - Paris Brain Institute - ICM +1
Multi-modal fusion is of great significance in neuroscience which integrates information from different modalities and can achieve better performance than uni-modal methods in downstream tasks. Current multi-modal fusion methods in brain networks, which mainly focus on structural connectivity (SC) and functional connectivity (FC) modalities, are static in nature. They feed different samples into the same model with identical computation, ignoring inherent difference between input samples. This lack of sample adaptation hinders model's further performance. To this end, we innovatively propose a multi-stage dynamic fusion strategy (M3D-BFS) for sample-adaptive multi-modal brain network analysis. Unlike other static fusion methods, we design different mixture-of-experts (MoEs) for uni- and multi-modal representations where modules can adaptively change as input sample changes during inference. To alleviate issue of MoE where training of experts may be collapsed, we divide our method into 3 stages. We first train uni-modal encoders respectively, then pretrain single experts of MoEs before finally finetuning the whole model. A multi-modal disentanglement loss is designed to enhance the final representations. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work for dynamic fusion for multi-modal brain network analysis. Extensive experiments on different real-world datasets demonstrates the superiority of M3D-BFS.
Rui Dong, Xiaotong Zhang, Jiaxing Li +3
School of Computer Science and Engineering, Southeast University