Estimation of Global and Local Complexities of Brain Networks: A Random Walks Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The complexity of brain activity has been observed at many spatial scales and there exists increasing evidence supporting its use in differentiating between mental states and disorders. Here we proposed a new measure of network (global) complexity that is constructed as the sum of the complexities of its nodes (i.e, local complexity). The local complexity of each node is regarded as an index that compares the sample entropy of the time series generated by the movement of a random walker on the network resulting from removing the node and its connections, with the sample entropy of the time series obtained from a regular lattice (the ordered state) and an Erdös-Renyi network (disordered state). We studied the complexity of fMRI-based resting-state functional networks. We found that positively correlated, or “ pos ”, network comprising only the positive functional connections has higher complexity than the anticorrelation (“ neg” ) network (comprising the negative functional connections) and the network consisting of the absolute value of all connections (“ abs” ). We also found a significant correlation between complexity and the strength of functional connectivity. For the pos network this correlation is significantly weaker at the local scale compared to the global scale, whereas for the neg network the link is stronger at the local scale than at the global scale, but still weaker than for the pos network. Our results suggest that the pos network is related to the information processing in the brain and should be used for functional connectivity analysis instead of the abs network as is usually done.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".