How are different neural networks related to consciousness?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the roles of different resting-state networks in predicting both the actual level of consciousness and its recovery in brain injury patients. METHODS: We investigated resting-state functional connectivity within different networks in patients with varying levels of consciousness: unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (UWS; n = 56), minimally conscious state (MCS; n = 29), and patients with brain lesions but full consciousness (BL; n = 48). Considering the actual level of consciousness, we compared the strength of network connectivity among the patient groups. We then checked the presence of connections between specific regions in individual patients and calculated the frequency of this in the different patient groups. Considering the recovery of consciousness, we split the UWS group into 2 subgroups according to recovery: those who emerged from UWS (UWS-E) and those who remained in UWS (UWS-R). The above analyses were repeated on these 2 subgroups. RESULTS: Functional connectivity strength in salience network (SN), especially connectivity between the supragenual anterior cingulate cortex (SACC) and left anterior insula (LAI), was reduced in the unconscious state (UWS) compared to the conscious state (MCS and BL). Moreover, at the individual level, SACC-LAI connectivity was more present in MCS than in UWS. Default-mode network (DMN) connectivity strength, especially between the posterior cingulate cortex (PCC) and left lateral parietal cortex (LLPC), was reduced in UWS-R compared with UWS-E. Furthermore, PCC-LLPC connectivity was more present in UWS-E than in UWS-R. INTERPRETATION: Our findings show that SN (SACC-LAI) connectivity correlates with behavioral signs of consciousness, whereas DMN (PCC-LLPC) connectivity instead predicts recovery of consciousness.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".