Functional-structural large-scale brain networks are correlated with neurocognitive impairment in acute mild traumatic brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study was conducted to investigate topological changes in large-scale functional connectivity (FC) and structural connectivity (SC) networks in acute mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and determine their potential relevance to cognitive impairment. Methods: Seventy-one patients with acute mTBI (29 males, 42 females, mean age 43.54 years) from Nanjing First Hospital and 57 matched healthy controls (HC) (33 males, 24 females, mean age 46.16 years) from the local community were recruited in this prospective study. Resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI) and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) were acquired within 14 days (mean 3.29 days) after the onset of mTBI. Then, large-scale FC and SC networks with 116 regions from the automated anatomical labeling (AAL) brain atlas were constructed. Graph theory analysis was used to analyze global and nodal metrics. Finally, correlations were assessed between topological properties and neurocognitive performances evaluated by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Bonferroni correction was performed out for multiple comparisons in all involved analyses. Results: ) for SC (Cohen's d=0.390 and Cohen's d=0.395). The mTBI group showed aberrant nodal degree (Dc), nodal efficiency (Ne), and nodal local efficiency (Nloc) for FC and aberrant Dc, nodal betweenness (Bc), nodal clustering coefficient (NCp) and Ne for SC mainly in the frontal and temporal, cerebellum, and subcortical areas. Acute mTBI patients also had higher functional-structural coupling strength at both the group and individual levels (Cohen's d=0.415). These aberrant global and nodal topological properties at functional and structural levels were associated with attention, orientation, memory, and naming performances (all P<0.05). Conclusions: Our findings suggested that large-scale FC and SC network changes, higher correlation between FC and SC and cognitive impairment can be detected in the acute stage of mTBI. These network aberrances may be a compensatory mechanism for cognitive impairment in acute mTBI 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".