Structure Can Predict Function in the Human Brain: A Graph Neural Network Deep Learning Model of Functional Connectivity and Centrality Based on Structural Connectivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although functional connectivity and associated graph theory measures (e.g., centrality; how centrally important to the network a region is) are widely used in brain research, the full extent to which these functional measures are related to the underlying structural connectivity is not yet fully understood. Graph neural network deep learning methods have not yet been applied for this purpose, and offer an ideal model architecture for working with connectivity data given their ability to capture and maintain inherent network structure. This model applied here to predict functional connectivity and centrality from structural connectivity accounted for 89% of the variance in mean functional connectivity, 56% of the variance in individual-level functional connectivity, 99% of the variance in mean functional centrality, and 81% of the variance in individual-level functional centrality. This model provides a new benchmark for performance and represents a novel finding that functional centrality can be robustly predicted from structural connectivity. Regions of particular importance to the model’s performance as determined through lesioning are discussed, whereby regions with higher centrality have a higher impact on model performance. Future research on models of patient, demographic, or behavioural data can also benefit from this graph neural network method as it is ideally-suited for capturing connectivity and centrality in brain networks. These results have set a new benchmark for prediction of functional connectivity from structural connectivity, and models like this may ultimately lead to a way to predict functional connectivity in individuals who are unable to do fMRI tasks (e.g., non-responsive patients).
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".