Evaluating test–retest reliability and sex‐/age‐related effects on temporal clustering coefficient of dynamic functional brain networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The multilayer dynamic network model has been proposed as an effective method to understand the brain function. In particular, derived from the definition of clustering coefficient in static networks, the temporal clustering coefficient provides a direct measure of the topological stability of dynamic brain networks and shows potential in predicting altered brain functions. However, test-retest reliability and demographic-related effects on this measure remain to be evaluated. Using a data set from the Human Connectome Project (157 male and 180 female healthy adults; 22-37 years old), the present study investigated: (1) the test-retest reliability of temporal clustering coefficient across four repeated resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging scans as measured by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC); and (2) sex- and age-related effects on temporal clustering coefficient. The results showed that (1) the temporal clustering coefficient had overall moderate test-retest reliability (ICC > 0.40 over a wide range of densities) at both global and subnetwork levels, (2) female subjects showed significantly higher temporal clustering coefficient than males at both global and subnetwork levels, particularly within the default-mode and subcortical regions, and (3) temporal clustering coefficient of the subcortical subnetwork was positively correlated with age in young adults. The results of sex effects were robustly replicated in an independent REST-meta-MDD data set, while the results of age effects were not. Our findings suggest that the temporal clustering coefficient is a relatively reliable and reproducible approach for identifying individual differences in brain function, and provide evidence for demographically related effects on the human brain dynamic connectomes.
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 | 0.017 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".