ArticlePloS one2025
Exploring dynamical whole-brain models in high-dimensional parameter spaces.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Deep learning and whole-brain networks for biomarker discovery: modeling the dynamics of brain fluctuations in resting-state and cognitive tasks.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- cuBNM: GPU-Accelerated Brain Network Modeling.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Personalized modeling of the resting-state brain activity implies the usage of dynamical whole-brain models with high-dimensional model parameter spaces. However, the practical benefits and mathematical challenges originating from such approaches have not been thoroughly documented, leaving the question of the value and utility of high-dimensional approaches unanswered. Studying a whole-brain model of coupled phase oscillators, we proceeded from low-dimensional scenarios featuring 2-3 global model parameters only to high-dimensional cases, where we additionally equipped every brain region with a specific local model parameter. To enable the parameter optimizations for the high-dimensional model fitting to empirical data, we applied two dedicated mathematical optimization algorithms (Bayesian Optimization, Covariance Matrix Adaptation Evolution Strategy). We thereby optimized up to 103 parameters simultaneously with the aim to maximize the correlation between simulated and empirical functional connectivity separately for 272 subjects. The obtained model parameters demonstrated increased variability within subjects and reduced reliability across repeated optimization runs in high-dimensional spaces. Nevertheless, the quality of the model validation (goodness-of-fit, GoF) improved considerably and remained very stable and reliable together with the simulated functional connectivity. Applying the modeling results to phenotypical data, we found significantly higher prediction accuracies for sex classification when the GoF or coupling parameter values optimized in the high-dimensional spaces were considered as features. Our results elucidate the model fitting in high-dimensional parameter spaces and can contribute to an improved dynamical brain modeling as well as its application to the frameworks of inter-individual variability and brain-behavior relationships.
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.