Brain network motifs are markers of loss and recovery of consciousness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Motifs are patterns of inter-connections between nodes of a network, and have been investigated as building blocks of directed networks. This study explored the re-organization of 3-node motifs during loss and recovery of consciousness. Nine healthy subjects underwent a 3-hour anesthetic protocol while 128-channel electroencephalography (EEG) was recorded. In the alpha (8–13 Hz) band, five-minute epochs of EEG were extracted for: baseline; induction; unconscious; 30-, 10- and 5-minutes pre-recovery of responsiveness; 30- and 180-minutes post-recovery of responsiveness. We constructed a functional brain network using the weighted and directed phase lag index, on which we calculated the frequency and topology of 3-node motifs. Three motifs (motifs 1, 2 and 5) were significantly present across participants and epochs, when compared to random networks (p<0.05). The topology of motifs 1 and 5 changed significantly between responsive and unresponsive epochs (p<0.01). Motif 1 was constituted by long-range chain-like connections, while motif 5 was constituted by short-range, loop-like connections. Our results suggest that anesthetic-induced unconsciousness is associated with a topological re-organization of network motifs. As motif topological re-organization may precede (motif 5) or accompany (motif 1) the return of responsiveness, motifs could contribute to the understanding of the neural correlates 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".