Monkey in the middle: why non-human primates are needed to bridge the gap in resting-state investigations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resting-state investigations based on the evaluation of intrinsic low-frequency fluctuations of the BOLD fMRI signal have been extensively utilized to map the structure and dynamics of large-scale functional network organization in humans. In addition to increasing our knowledge of normal brain connectivity, disruptions of the spontaneous hemodynamic fluctuations have been suggested as possible diagnostic indicators of neurological and psychiatric disease states. Though the non-invasive technique has been received with much acclamation, open questions remain regarding the origin, organization, phylogenesis, as well as the basis of disease-related alterations underlying the signal patterns. Experimental work utilizing animal models, including the use of neurophysiological recordings and pharmacological manipulations, therefore, represents a critical component in the understanding and successful application of resting-state analysis, as it affords a range of experimental manipulations not possible in human subjects. In this article, we review recent rodent and non-human primate studies and based on the examination of the homologous brain architecture propose the latter to be the best-suited model for exploring these unresolved resting-state concerns. Ongoing work examining the correspondence of functional and structural connectivity, state-dependency and the neuronal correlates of the hemodynamic oscillations are discussed. We then consider the potential experiments that will allow insight into different brain states and disease-related network disruptions that can extend the clinical applications of resting-state fMRI (RS-fMRI).
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 | 0.020 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
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".