ArticleFrontiers in computational neuroscience2024
Modeling functional connectivity changes during an auditory language task using line graph neural networks.
Article in Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Increased sensitivity in identifying language-related functional connectivity using jackknife resampling analyses.Network neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Functional connectivity (FC) refers to the activation correlation between different brain regions. FC networks as typically represented as graphs with brain regions of interest (ROIs) as nodes and functional correlation as edges. Graph neural networks (GNNs) are machine learning architectures used to analyze FC graphs. However, traditional GNNs are limited in their ability to characterize FC edge attributes because they typically emphasize the importance of ROI node-based brain activation data. Line GNNs convert the edges of the original graph to nodes in the transformed graph, thereby emphasizing the FC between brain regions. We hypothesize that line GNNs will outperform traditional GNNs in FC applications. We investigated the performance of two common GNN architectures (GraphSAGE and GCN) trained on line and traditional graphs predicting task-associated FC changes across two datasets. The first dataset was from the Human Connectome Project (HCP) with 205 participants, the second was a dataset with 12 participants. The HCP dataset detailed FC changes in participants during a story-listening task, while the second dataset included the FC changes in a different auditory language task. Our findings from the HCP dataset indicated that line GNNs achieved lower mean squared error compared to traditional GNNs, with the line GraphSAGE model outperforming the traditional GraphSAGE by 18% (
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.