The current and future contribution of neuroimaging to the understanding of disorders of consciousness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC) represent a group of severely brain-injured patients with varying capacities for consciousness in terms of both wakefulness and awareness. The current state-of-the-art for assessing these patients is through standardised behavioural examinations, but inaccuracies are commonplace. Neuroimaging and electrophysiological techniques have revealed vast insights into the relationships between neural alterations, andcognitive and behavioural features of consciousness in patients with DoC. This has led to the establishment of neuroimaging paradigms for the clinical assessment of DoC patients. Here, we review selected neuroimaging findings on the DoC population, outlining key findings of the dysfunction underlying DoC and presenting the current clinical utility of neuroimaging tools. We discuss that whilst individual brain areas play instrumental roles in generating and supporting consciousness, activation of these areas alone is not sufficient for conscious experience. Instead, for consciousness to arise, we need preserved thalamo-cortical circuits, in addition to sufficient connectivity between distinctly differentiated brain networks, underlined by connectivity both within, and between such brain networks. Finally, we present recent advances and future perspectives in computational methodologies applied to DoC, supporting the notion that progress in the science of DoC will be driven by a symbiosis of these data-driven analyses, and theory-driven research. Both perspectives will work in tandem to provide mechanistic insights contextualised within theoretical frameworks which ultimately inform the practice of clinical neurology.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".