Connectome topology of mammalian brains and its relationship to taxonomy and phylogeny
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Network models of anatomical connections allow for the extraction of quantitative features describing brain organization, and their comparison across brains from different species. Such comparisons can inform our understanding of between-species differences in brain architecture and can be compared to existing taxonomies and phylogenies. Here we performed a quantitative comparative analysis using the MaMI database (Tel Aviv University), a collection of brain networks reconstructed from ex vivo diffusion MRI spanning 125 species and 12 taxonomic orders or superorders. We used a broad range of metrics to measure between-mammal distances and compare these estimates to the separation of species as derived from taxonomy and phylogeny. We found that within-taxonomy order network distances are significantly closer than between-taxonomy network distances, and this relation holds for several measures of network distance. Furthermore, to estimate the evolutionary divergence between species, we obtained phylogenetic distances across 10,000 plausible phylogenetic trees. The anatomical network distances were rank-correlated with phylogenetic distances 10,000 times, creating a distribution of coefficients that demonstrate significantly positive correlations between network and phylogenetic distances. Collectively, these analyses demonstrate species-level organization across scales and informational sources: we relate brain networks distances, derived from MRI, with evolutionary distances, derived from genotyping data.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".