Characterizing Functional Integrity: Intraindividual Brain Signal Variability Predicts Memory Performance in Patients with Medial Temporal Lobe Epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational modeling suggests that variability in brain signals provides important information regarding the system's capacity to adopt different network configurations that may promote optimal responding to stimuli. Although there is limited empirical work on this construct, a recent study indicates that age-related decreases in variability across the adult lifespan correlate with less efficient and less accurate performance. Here, we extend this construct to the assessment of cerebral integrity by comparing fMRI BOLD variability and fMRI BOLD amplitude in their ability to account for differences in functional capacity in patients with focal unilateral medial temporal dysfunction. We were specifically interested in whether either of these BOLD measures could identify a link between the affected medial temporal region and memory performance (as measured by a clinical test of verbal memory retention). Using partial least-squares analyses, we found that variability in a set of regions including the left hippocampus predicted verbal retention and, furthermore, this relationship was similar across a range of cognitive tasks measured during scanning (i.e., the same pattern was seen in fixation, autobiographical recall, and word generation). In contrast, signal amplitude in the hippocampus did not predict memory performance, even for a task that reliably activates the medial temporal lobes (i.e., autobiographical recall). These findings provide a powerful validation of the concept that variability in brain signals reflects functional integrity. Furthermore, this measure can be characterized as a robust biomarker in this clinical setting because it reveals the same pattern regardless of cognitive challenge or task engagement during scanning.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".