Comparing models of information transfer in the structural brain network and their relationship to functional connectivity: diffusion versus shortest path routing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between structural and functional connectivity in the human brain is a core question in network neuroscience, and a topic of paramount importance to our ability to meaningfully describe and predict functional outcomes. Graph theory has been used to produce measures based on the structural connectivity network that are related to functional connectivity. These measures are commonly based on either the shortest path routing model or the diffusion model, which carry distinct assumptions about how information is transferred through the network. Unlike shortest path routing, which assumes the most efficient path is always known, the diffusion model makes no such assumption, and lets information diffuse in parallel based on the number of connections to other regions. Past research has also developed hybrid measures that use concepts from both models, which have better predicted functional connectivity from structural connectivity than the shortest path length alone. We examined the extent to which each of these models can account for the structure-function relationship of interest using graph theory measures that are exclusively based on each model. This analysis was performed on multiple parcellations of the Human Connectome Project using multiple approaches, which all converged on the same finding. We found that the diffusion model accounts for much more variance in functional connectivity than the shortest path routing model, suggesting that the diffusion model is better suited to describing the structure-function relationship in the human brain at the macroscale.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it