Brain Network Dynamics and Multiscale Modeling of Neurodegenerative Disorders: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is essential to understand the complex structure of the human brain to develop new treatment approaches for neurodegenerative disorders (NDDs). This review paper comprehensively discusses the challenges associated with modelling the complex brain networks and dynamic processes involved in NDDs, particularly Alzheimer’s disease (AD), Parkinson’s disease (PD), and cortical spreading depression (CSD). We investigate how the brain’s biological processes and associated multiphysics interact and how this influences the structure and functionality of the brain. We review the literature on brain network models and dynamic processes, highlighting the need for sophisticated mathematical and statistical modelling techniques. Specifically, we go through large-scale brain network models relevant to AD and PD, highlighting the pathological mechanisms and potential therapeutic strategies investigated in the literature. Additionally, we investigate the propagation of CSD in the brain and its implications for neurological disorders. Furthermore, we discuss how data-driven approaches and artificial neural networks refine and validate models related to NDDs. Overall, this review underscores the significance of coupled multiscale models in deciphering disease mechanisms, offering potential avenues for therapeutic development and advancing our understanding of pathological 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".