MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416269897 · doi:10.1002/hbm.70413

Toward Personalized Neuroscience: Evaluating Individual‐Level Information in Neural Mass Models

2025· article· en· W4416269897 on OpenAlexaff
Carlotta Barkhau, Clemens Pellengahr, Zheng Wang, L. Fisch, Ramona Leenings, Nils R. Winter, Jan Ernsting, Maximilian Konowski, Dominik Grotegerd, Susanne Meinert, Julia Hubbert, Judith Krieger, Tiana Borgers, Kira Flinkenflügel, Elisabeth J. Leehr, Frederike Stein, Florian Thomas‐Odenthal, Paula Usemann, Lea Teutenberg, Igor Nenadić, Benjamín Straube, Nina Alexander, Andreas Jansen, Christian Porschen, Tilo Kircher, John D. Griffiths, Hamidreza Jamalabadi, Udo Dannlowski, Tim Hahn

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Brain Mapping · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of Toronto
FundersWestfälische Wilhelms-Universität MünsterDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsGranularityReplicateENCODEIdentification (biology)Artificial neural networkVariance (accounting)Differentiable functionImplementationBenchmark (surveying)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Macroscale brain modeling using neural mass models (NMMs) offers a framework for simulating human whole‐brain dynamics. These models are pivotal for investigating the brain as a complex dynamic system, exploring phenomena like bifurcations, oscillatory patterns, and responses to stimuli. While connectome‐based NMMs allow for the creation of personalized NMMs, their utility in capturing individual‐specific neural characteristics remains underexplored, with current studies constrained by small sample sizes and computational inefficiencies. To address these limitations, we employed an algorithmically differentiable version of the reduced Wong Wang (RWW) model, enabling efficient optimization for large datasets. Applying this to resting‐state fMRI data from 1444 samples, we optimized models with varying parameter complexities ( n = 4, 658, and 23,875), which were derived from creating biologically plausible model variants. The optimized models achieved 4%, 19%, and 56% variance explanation in empirical functional connectivity (FC), respectively. Subject identification accuracy, based on simulated FC patterns, improved from < 1% ( n = 4) to almost 100% ( n = 23,875). Despite this precision, individual‐level correlations between model parameters and attributes like age, gender, or intelligence quotient were small (effect sizes: , standardized ). Machine learning analyses confirmed that these parameters lack the granularity to encode personal traits effectively. These findings suggest that, while current implementations of the RWW NMM can robustly replicate resting‐state dynamics, the resulting parameters may lack the granularity required to map onto individual‐specific behavioral metrics. This highlights a critical alignment problem: neural patterns and behavioral constructs such as intelligence may not correspond in a one‐to‐one fashion but instead represent higher‐level abstractions. Bridging this gap will require the development of new tools capable of uncovering the underlying mapping manifolds, likely situated at the level of functional dynamics rather than isolated parameters. Future efforts should build on individual‐level mechanistic modeling by exploring more expressive model classes and integrating richer sources of data, such as multimodal imaging or task‐based paradigms, to better capture individual variability in both neural dynamics and behavioral traits. Such approaches may ultimately help to bridge the gap between model‐based neural similarity and clinically meaningful personalization.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.287
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.071 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Brain MappingSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207