Resting-State Brain Network Characteristics Related to Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Preliminary fNIRS Proof-of-Concept Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study investigates the reliability of functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) in detecting resting-state brain network characteristics in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), focusing on static resting-state functional connectivity (sRSFC) and dynamic resting-state functional connectivity (dRSFC) patterns in MCI patients and healthy controls (HCs) without cognitive impairment. Methods: A total of 89 MCI patients and 83 HCs were characterized using neuropsychological scales. Subject sRSFC strength and dRSFC variability coefficients were evaluated via fNIRS. The study evaluated the feasibility of using fNIRS to measure these connectivity metrics and compared resting-state brain network characteristics between the two groups. Correlations with Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores were also explored. Results: sRSFC strength in homologous brain networks was significantly lower than in heterologous networks (p < 0.05). A significant negative correlation was also observed between sRSFC strength and dRSFC variability at both the group and individual levels (p < 0.001). While sRSFC strength did not differentiate between MCI patients and HCs, the dRSFC variability between the dorsal attention network (DAN) and default mode network (DMN), and between the ventral attention network (VAN) and visual network (VIS), emerged as sensitive biomarkers after false discovery rate correction (p < 0.05). No significant correlation was found between MoCA scores and connectivity measures. Conclusions: fNIRS can be used to study resting-state brain networks, with dRSFC variability being more sensitive than sRSFC strength for discriminating between MCI patients and HCs. The DAN-DMN and VAN-VIS regions were found to be particularly useful for the identification of dRSFC differences between the two groups. Clinical Trial Registration: ChiCTR2200057281, registered on 6 March, 2022; https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=133808.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".