MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409260304 · doi:10.1088/1741-2552/ae5fd7

Metric Validation for Detection of Delayed and Directed Coupling

2025· preprint· en· W4409260304 on OpenAlexaff
Kate Dembny, Hafsa Farooqi, Alexander Herman, Théoden I. Netoff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neural Engineering · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Chemical Sensor Technologies
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Centre
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and DepressionUniversity of MinnesotaBrain and Behavior Research Foundation
KeywordsMetric (unit)Coupling (piping)Computer sciencePsychologyEconomicsEngineeringOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background The brain functions as a complex network of billions of interconnected neurons, coordinating processes from basic reflexes to high-level cognition. Dysfunction in these networks contribute to neurological and psychiatric disorders, including epilepsy, depression, and Parkinson’s disease. Understanding these network alterations is essential for developing effective therapies. However, reconstructing network topology from human electrophysiology data is challenging due to sparse sampling, measurement noise, and variable time delays in interregional communication. Effective connectivity (EC) metrics have been developed to infer directed neural interactions, but their accuracy and robustness under real-world data constraints remain unclear. This study empirically evaluates common EC metrics to determine which most accurately reconstruct network topology in the presence of data limitations. Methods We generated Erdős–Rényi networks and simulated time series using a time-delayed vector autoregressive (VAR) model. We systematically varied network size, data length, measurement noise, and network coverage. Variations of four commonly used EC metrics, cross-correlation, Granger causality, mutual information, and transfer entropy, were evaluated for reconstruction accuracy using cosine distance to compare estimated and true connectivity matrices. Results Multivariate transfer entropy demonstrated the highest accuracy across various conditions but required significantly longer computation times. For small networks (<30 nodes), mutual information and Granger causality rapidly and accurately reconstructed networks. For larger networks, partial cross-correlation performed well with good computational efficiency. Notably, zero-lag metrics perform no better than chance in nearly all conditions. Conclusion The choice of an EC metric should consider specific data constraints.While multivariate transfer entropy is the most reliable across conditions, its long runtime limits its practical application. For large networks, partial cross-correlation offers a faster and reasonably accurate alternative. Granger causality and mutual information are effective for small networks. Critically, time-lagged metrics are essential for accurate network reconstructions, as failing to account for time delays leads to reconstructions no more accurate than random network models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neural EngineeringSame topicAdvanced Chemical Sensor TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207