Fractals in the Neurosciences, Part II
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been ascertained that the human brain is a complex system studied at multiple scales, from neurons and microcircuits to macronetworks. The brain is characterized by a hierarchical organization that gives rise to its highly topological and functional complexity. Over the last decades, fractal geometry has been shown as a universal tool for the analysis and quantification of the geometric complexity of natural objects, including the brain. The fractal dimension has been identified as a quantitative parameter for the evaluation of the roughness of neural structures, the estimation of time series, and the description of patterns, thus able to discriminate different states of the brain in its entire physiopathological spectrum. Fractal-based computational analyses have been applied to the neurosciences, particularly in the field of clinical neurosciences including neuroimaging and neuroradiology, neurology and neurosurgery, psychiatry and psychology, and neuro-oncology and neuropathology. After a review of the basic concepts of fractal analysis and its main applications to the basic neurosciences in part I of this series, here, we review the main applications of fractals to the clinical neurosciences for a holistic approach towards a fractal geometry model of the brain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".