Spine-Prints: Transposing Brain Fingerprints to the Spinal Cord
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Functional connectivity (FC) patterns in the human brain form a reproducible, individual-specific “fingerprint” that allows reliable identification of the same participant across scans acquired over different sessions. While brain fingerprinting is robust across healthy individuals and neuroimaging modalities, little is known about whether the fingerprinting principle extends beyond the brain. Here, we used multiple functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) datasets acquired at different sites to examine whether a fingerprint can be revealed from FCs of the cervical region of the human spinal cord. Our results demonstrate that the functional organisation of this region also exhibits individual-specific properties, suggesting the potential existence of a spine-print within the same acquisition session. Although the spine-print scores are not directly comparable to those observed in the brain, this discrepancy may in part reflect the intrinsic limitations of imaging this region with fMRI, where where the signals are more susceptible to noise and effective resolution relative to structure size, and tSNR are markedly lower than in the brain.This study provides the first evidence of a spinal cord connectivity fingerprint, underscoring the importance of considering a more comprehensive view of the entire central nervous system. Eventually, these spine-specific signatures could contribute to identifying individualized biomarkers of neuronal connectivity, with potential clinical applications in neurology and neurosurgery.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".