{"doi":"10.1162/imag.a.107","title":"Functional connectivity heterogeneity and consequences for clinical and cognitive prediction: Stage 2 registered report","abstract":"Functional connectivity is frequently used to assess dynamic brain functioning and predict individual differences in behavioral outcomes, such as psychopathology. Inferences from functional connectivity analyses typically rely on group-averaged model statistics. However, heterogeneity between individuals may lead to group-level models that poorly reflect each individual. Poor individual-level precision may limit the ability to make individual-level predictions, which is necessary for key goals such as clinical translation. This registered report examined between-person heterogeneity in resting-state functional connectivity strength patterns by assessing similarity between group- and individual-level connectivity models in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study. Using intraclass correlation coefficients, we found that a group-averaged region-of-interest-based connectivity model was a poor reflection of every individual. In contrast, a group-averaged model of between- and within-network connectivity was a good representation of most individuals. We then examined how individual-level distinctness from the group moderated predictive performance of several clinical and neurocognitive scales. Hypotheses that group-to-individual dissimilarity would worsen behavioral prediction were not supported with primary clinical outcomes. The little psychopathology reported in this sample was a notable limitation. In contrast, lower similarity to the group worsened prediction of performance on the pattern comparison test, providing minor support for hypotheses. Overall, results suggest that region-of-interest-based functional connectivity networks are highly heterogeneous and group-based models are inappropriate for individual-level inferences, but that network-based connectivity is largely similar across individuals. Additionally, we provide minor evidence of the impacts of heterogeneity on prediction that future studies should build on.","journal":"Imaging Neuroscience","year":2025,"id":541915,"datarank":0.0,"base_score":0.0,"endowment":0.0,"self_citation_contribution":0.0,"citation_network_contribution":0.0,"self_endowment_contribution":0.0,"citer_contribution":0.0,"corpus_percentile":null,"corpus_rank":null,"citation_count":2,"citer_count":0,"citers_with_citation_signal":0,"citers_with_endowment":0,"datacite_reuse_total":0,"is_dataset":false,"is_dataset_confidence":0.9529,"is_data_producer":false,"deposit_databanks":null,"is_oa":true,"file_count":0,"downloads":0,"has_version_chain":false,"published_date":"2025-01-01","fair_score":null,"fair_percentile":null,"algorithm_id":"datarank_citation_only_1hop_v6","ranking_scope":"data_only","authors":[{"id":299166,"name":"David V. Smith","orcid":"0000-0001-5754-9633","position":1,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":421714,"name":"Jason Chein","orcid":"0000-0002-8430-7899","position":2,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":341358,"name":"Thomas M. Olino","orcid":"0000-0001-5139-8571","position":3,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":758904,"name":"Matthew Mattoni","orcid":"0000-0001-8931-0707","position":0,"is_corresponding":true}],"reference_count":59,"raw_metadata":null,"created_at":"2026-07-19T02:52:51.593043Z","pmid":"40808790","pmcid":null,"fwci":null,"citation_percentile":null,"influential_citations":0,"oa_status":null,"license":null,"views":0,"total_file_size_bytes":0,"version_count":0,"fair_f":null,"fair_a":null,"fair_i":null,"fair_r":null,"fair_zscore":null,"fair_rationale":null,"fair_model":null,"fair_agent_version":null,"fair_fulltext_source":null,"fair_has_llm":null,"fair_computed_at":null,"clinical_trials":[],"software_tools":[],"db_accessions":[],"linked_datasets":[],"topics":[]}