ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2023
Intelligent diagnosis of major depression disease based on multi-layer brain network.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intelligent diagnosis of major depressive disorder with edge convolution and contrastive learning.PloS one · 2026Article
- The efficacy of topological properties of functional brain networks in identifying major depressive disorder.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Involvement of the default mode network in patients with transient global amnesia: multilayer network.Neuroradiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Resting-state brain network with physiological and pathological basis has always been the ideal data for intelligent diagnosis of major depression disease (MDD). Brain networks are divided into low-order networks and high-order networks. Most of the studies only use a single-level network to classify while ignoring that the brain works cooperatively with different levels of networks. This study hopes to find out whether varying levels of networks will provide complementary information in the process of intelligent diagnosis and what impact will be made on the final classification results by combining the characteristics of different networks. Methods: Our data are from the REST-meta-MDD project. After the screening, 1,160 subjects from ten sites were included in this study (597 MDD and 563 normal controls). For each subject, we constructed three different levels of networks according to the brain atlas: the traditional low-order network based on Pearson's correlation (low-order functional connectivity, LOFC), the high-order network based on topographical profile similarity (topographical information-based high-order functional connectivity, tHOFC) and the associated network between them (aHOFC). Two sample Results: The classification ability of LOFC is the highest among the three networks. The classification accuracy of the three networks combined is similar to the LOFC network. These are seven features chosen in all networks. In the aHOFC classification, six features were selected in each round but not seen in other classifications. In the tHOFC classification, five features were selected in each round but were unique. These new features have crucial pathological significance and are essential supplements to LOFC. Conclusion: A high-order network can provide auxiliary information for low-order networks but cannot improve classification accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.