Bayesian approaches for revealing complex neural network dynamics in Parkinson’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parkinson’s disease (PD) belongs to the class of neurodegenerative disorders that affect the central nervous system. It is usually defined as the gradual loss of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra pars compacta, which causes both motor and non-motor symptoms. Understanding the neuronal processes that underlie PD is critical for creating successful therapies. This study combines machine learning (ML), stochastic modelling, and Bayesian inference with connectomic data to analyse the brain networks involved in PD. We use modern computational methods to study large-scale neural networks to identify neuronal activity patterns related to PD development. We aim to define the subtle structural and functional connection changes in PD brains by combining connectomic with stochastic noises. Stochastic modelling approaches reflect brain dynamics’ intrinsic variability and unpredictability, shedding light on the origin and spread of pathogenic events in PD. We employ a novel hybrid model to assess how stochastic noise impacts the cortex-basal ganglia-thalamus (CBGTH) network, using data from the Human Connectome Project (HCP). Bayesian inference allows us to quantify uncertainty in model parameters, improving the accuracy of our predictions. Our findings reveal that stochastic disturbances increase thalamus activity, even under deep brain stimulation (DBS). Bayesian analysis suggests that reducing these disturbances could enhance healthy brain states, providing insights for potential therapeutic interventions. This approach offers a deeper understanding of PD dynamics and paves the way for personalized treatment strategies. This is an extended version of our work presented at the ICCS-2024 conference (Shaheen and Melnik, 2024) [1] . • We combine machine learning and Bayesian inference to analyze brain network dynamics in PD. • Stochastic disturbances increase thalamus activity in the CBGTH under DBS. • Bayesian inference quantifies uncertainty in model predictions, enhancing PD insights. • This study opens new paths for AI-driven, personlized treaments targeting brain dynamics.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".