Brain structural connectivity predicts brain functional complexity: DTI derived centrality accounts for variance in fractal properties of fMRI signal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The complexity of brain activity has recently been investigated using the Hurst (H) exponent, which describes the extent to which functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) blood oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) activity is self-similar vs. complex. For example, research has demonstrated that fMRI activity is more complex before than after consumption of alcohol and during task than resting state. The measurement of H in fMRI is a novel method that requires the investigation of additional factors contributing to complexity. Graph theory metrics of centrality can assess how centrally important to the brain network each region is, based on diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) counts of probabilistic white matter (WM) tracts. DTI derived centrality was hypothesized to account for the complexity of functional activity, based on the supposition that more sources of information to integrate should result in more complex activity. FMRI BOLD complexity as measured by H was associated with five brain region centrality measures: degree, eigenvector, PageRank, current flow betweenness, and current flow closeness centrality. Multiple regression analyses demonstrated that degree centrality was the most robust predictor of complexity, whereby greater centrality was associated with increased complexity (lower H). Regions known to be highly connected, including the thalamus and hippocampus, notably were among the highest in centrality and complexity. This research has led to a greater understanding of how brain region characteristics such as DTI centrality relate to the novel Hurst exponent approach for assessing brain activity complexity, and implications for future research that employ these measures are discussed.
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 | 0.011 |
| 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".