Molecular connectivity studies in neurotransmission: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Positron emission tomography (PET) and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) are essential molecular imaging tools for the in vivo investigation of neurotransmission. Traditionally, PET and SPECT images are analysed in a univariate manner, testing for changes in radiotracer binding in regions or voxels of interest independently of each other. Over the past decade, there has been an increasing interest in the so-called molecular connectivity approach that captures relationships of molecular imaging measures in different brain regions. Targeting these inter-regional interactions within a neuroreceptor system may allow to better understand complex brain functions. In this article, we provide a comprehensive review of molecular connectivity studies in the field of neurotransmission. We examine the expanding use of molecular connectivity approaches, highlighting their applications, advantages over traditional methods, and contributions to advancing neuroscientific knowledge. A systematic search in three bibliographic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus on July 14, 2023 was conducted. A second search was rerun on April 4, 2024. Molecular imaging studies examining functional interactions across brain regions were included based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Thirty-nine studies were included in the scoping review. Studies were categorised based on the primary neurotransmitter system being targeted: dopamine, serotonin, opioid, muscarinic, glutamate, and synaptic density. The most investigated system was the dopaminergic and the most investigated disease was Parkinson’s disease (PD). This review highlighted the diverse applications and methodologies in molecular connectivity research, particularly for neurodegenerative diseases and psychiatric disorders. Molecular connectivity research offers significant advantages over traditional methods, providing deeper insights into brain function and disease mechanisms. As the field continues to evolve, embracing these advanced methodologies will be essential to understand the complexities of the human brain and improve the robustness and applicability of research findings in clinical settings.
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 | 0.008 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".