Computational modeling of whole-brain dynamics: a review of neurosurgical applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A major goal of modern neurosurgery is the personalization of treatment to optimize or predict individual outcomes. One strategy in this regard has been to create whole-brain models of individual patients. Whole-brain modeling is a subfield of computational neuroscience that focuses on simulations of large-scale neural activity patterns across distributed brain networks. Recent advances allow for the personalization of these models by incorporating distinct connectivity architecture obtained from noninvasive neuroimaging of individual patients. Local dynamics of each brain region are simulated with neural mass models and subsequently coupled together, considering the subject's empirical structural connectome. The parameters of the model can be optimized by comparing model-generated and empirical data. The resulting personalized whole-brain models have translational potential in neurosurgery, allowing investigators to simulate the effects of virtual therapies (such as resections or brain stimulations), assess the effect of brain pathology on network dynamics, or discern epileptic networks and predict seizure propagation in silico. The information gained from these simulations can be used as clinical decision support, guiding patient-specific treatment plans. Here the authors provide an overview of the rapidly advancing field of whole-brain modeling and review the literature on neurosurgical applications of this technology.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".