A Multi-Subject, Dynamic Bayesian Networks (DBNS) Framework for Brain Effective Connectivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As dynamic connectivity is shown essential for normal brain function and is disrupted in disease, it is critical to develop models for inferring brain effective connectivity from non-invasive (e.g., fMRI) data. Increasingly, (dynamic) Bayesian network (BNs) have been suggested for this purpose due to their flexibility and suitability. However, ultimately extrapolating BN results from one subject to an entire population first requires methods meaningfully addressing inter-subject, within-group variability. Here we explore two group analysis approaches in fMRI using DBNs: one is to construct a group network based on a common structure assumption across individuals, and the other is to identify significant structure features by examining DBNs individually-trained. By investigating real fMRI data from Parkinsons disease (PD) and normal subjects performing a motor task at three progressive levels of difficulty, we noted that both methods detected statistically significant, biologically plausible connectivity between task-related region-of-interest (ROIs) that differed between the PD and normal subjects. However, the second approach was more sensitive, finding more features that were also consistent with prior neuroscience knowledge. Determining highly reproducible DBN nodes/edges across subjects seems promising for inferring altered functional connectivity within a group.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".