MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1931427066 · doi:10.1093/brain/awv169

Intrinsic functional connectivity differentiates minimally conscious from unresponsive patients

2015· article· en· W1931427066 on OpenAlexaff
Athéna Demertzi, Georgios Antonopoulos, Lizette Heine, Henning U. Voss, Julia Crone, Carlo de los Angeles, Mohamed Ali Bahri, Carol Di Perri, Audrey Vanhaudenhuyse, Vanessa Charland‐Verville, Martin Kronbichler, Eugen Trinka, Christophe Phillips, Francisco Gómez, Luaba Tshibanda, Andrea Soddu, Nicholas D. Schiff, Susan Whitfield‐Gabrieli, Steven Laureys

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinimally conscious stateWakefulnessComa (optics)Persistent vegetative stateFunctional magnetic resonance imagingPsychologyResting state fMRIAmnesiaAnesthesiaMedicineNeuroscienceConsciousnessPsychiatryElectroencephalography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite advances in resting state functional magnetic resonance imaging investigations, clinicians remain with the challenge of how to implement this paradigm on an individualized basis. Here, we assessed the clinical relevance of resting state functional magnetic resonance imaging acquisitions in patients with disorders of consciousness by means of a systems-level approach. Three clinical centres collected data from 73 patients in minimally conscious state, vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome and coma. The main analysis was performed on the data set coming from one centre (Liège) including 51 patients (26 minimally conscious state, 19 vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome, six coma; 15 females; mean age 49 ± 18 years, range 11-87; 16 traumatic, 32 non-traumatic of which 13 anoxic, three mixed; 35 patients assessed >1 month post-insult) for whom the clinical diagnosis with the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised was congruent with positron emission tomography scanning. Group-level functional connectivity was investigated for the default mode, frontoparietal, salience, auditory, sensorimotor and visual networks using a multiple-seed correlation approach. Between-group inferential statistics and machine learning were used to identify each network's capacity to discriminate between patients in minimally conscious state and vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome. Data collected from 22 patients scanned in two other centres (Salzburg: 10 minimally conscious state, five vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome; New York: five minimally conscious state, one vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome, one emerged from minimally conscious state) were used to validate the classification with the selected features. Coma Recovery Scale-Revised total scores correlated with key regions of each network reflecting their involvement in consciousness-related processes. All networks had a high discriminative capacity (>80%) for separating patients in a minimally conscious state and vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome. Among them, the auditory network was ranked the most highly. The regions of the auditory network which were more functionally connected in patients in minimally conscious state compared to vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome encompassed bilateral auditory and visual cortices. Connectivity values in these three regions discriminated congruently 20 of 22 independently assessed patients. Our findings point to the significance of preserved abilities for multisensory integration and top-down processing in minimal consciousness seemingly supported by auditory-visual crossmodal connectivity, and promote the clinical utility of the resting paradigm for single-patient diagnostics.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations395
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207