ArticleNetwork neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2024
Contrasting topologies of synchronous and asynchronous functional brain networks.
Article in Network neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Introducing Structural Reliance: A New Method to Assess Structure-Function Coupling in the Brain.Human brain mapping · 2026Article
- Fractal Analysis of Brain Activity During Risky Drinking in Adolescents and Young Adults.Brain sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We generated asynchronous functional networks (aFNs) using a novel method called optimal causation entropy and compared aFN topology with the correlation-based synchronous functional networks (sFNs), which are commonly used in network neuroscience studies. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) time series from 212 participants of the National Consortium on Alcohol and Neurodevelopment in Adolescence study were used to generate aFNs and sFNs. As a demonstration of how aFNs and sFNs can be used in tandem, we used multivariate mixed effects models to determine whether age interacted with node efficiency to influence connection probabilities in the two networks. After adjusting for differences in network density, aFNs had higher global efficiency but lower local efficiency than the sFNs. In the aFNs, nodes with the highest outgoing global efficiency tended to be in the brainstem and orbitofrontal cortex. aFN nodes with the highest incoming global efficiency tended to be members of the default mode network in sFNs. Age interacted with node global efficiency in aFNs and node local efficiency in sFNs to influence connection probability. We conclude that the sFN and aFN both offer information about functional brain connectivity that the other type of network does not.
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.