MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224248691 · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-29770-y

Local structure-function relationships in human brain networks across the lifespan

2022· article· en· W4224248691 on OpenAlexaff
Farnaz Zamani Esfahlani, Joshua Faskowitz, Jonah Slack, Bratislav Mišić, Richard F. Betzel

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthNIH Blueprint for Neuroscience ResearchMcDonnell Center for Systems NeuroscienceNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsStylized factCoupling (piping)Variance (accounting)Set (abstract data type)Function (biology)CognitionComputer scienceHuman brainNeuroscienceBiologyEvolutionary biologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A growing number of studies have used stylized network models of communication to predict brain function from structure. Most have focused on a small set of models applied globally. Here, we compare a large number of models at both global and regional levels. We find that globally most predictors perform poorly. At the regional level, performance improves but heterogeneously, both in terms of variance explained and the optimal model. Next, we expose synergies among predictors by using pairs to jointly predict FC. Finally, we assess age-related differences in global and regional coupling across the human lifespan. We find global decreases in the magnitude of structure-function coupling with age. We find that these decreases are driven by reduced coupling in sensorimotor regions, while higher-order cognitive systems preserve local coupling with age. Our results describe patterns of structure-function coupling across the cortex and how this may change with age.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations175
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207