MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Finding Community of Brain Networks Based on Neighbor Index and DPSO with Dynamic Crossover

2019· article· en· W2980421046 on OpenAlexaff
Jie Zhang, Junhong Feng, Fang‐Xiang Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Bioinformatics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Guangxi ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCrossoverComputer scienceParticle swarm optimizationModularity (biology)Convergence (economics)Artificial neural networkCoding (social sciences)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: : The brain networks can provide us an effective way to analyze brain function and brain disease detection. In brain networks, there exist some import neural unit modules, which contain meaningful biological insights. Objective:: Therefore, we need to find the optimal neural unit modules effectively and efficiently. Method:: In this study, we propose a novel algorithm to find community modules of brain networks by combining Neighbor Index and Discrete Particle Swarm Optimization (DPSO) with dynamic crossover, abbreviated as NIDPSO. The differences between this study and the existing ones lie in that NIDPSO is proposed first to find community modules of brain networks, and dose not need to predefine and preestimate the number of communities in advance. Results: : We generate a neighbor index table to alleviate and eliminate ineffective searches and design a novel coding by which we can determine the community without computing the distances amongst vertices in brain networks. Furthermore, dynamic crossover and mutation operators are designed to modify NIDPSO so as to alleviate the drawback of premature convergence in DPSO. Conclusion: The numerical results performing on several resting-state functional MRI brain networks demonstrate that NIDPSO outperforms or is comparable with other competing methods in terms of modularity, coverage and conductance metrics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent BioinformaticsSame topicComplex Network Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207