ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Quantifying Similarity of Dynamic Brain Networks: Two Novel Indices for Structural Change and Temporal Evolution.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brain functional connectivity evolves dynamically during brain development, aging, illness, and cognitive activities. Traditional methods rely on static network snapshots, which do not capture the dynamics of the brain. We propose two new indices: Dynamic Network Similarity (DNS) to measure both temporal and structural dynamic similarity and Dynamic Network Evolution Similarity (DNES) to specifically measure the temporal evolution of dynamic networks. Performance was tested using simulated dynamic networks controlled by four variables (Δφ, λ, α, and β) concerning evolution variations in phase, relative amplitude, noise power, and the span of connectivity strength, respectively. Furthermore, real-world fMRI data from 25 stroke patients pre/post transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) rehabilitation were used to test the indices. Patients were randomly sub-grouped into tDCS1 and tDCS2. DNS and DNES thus compared those who received the same therapy (ST: tDCS1 versus tDCS2) and those who received different therapies (DT: tDCS1 versus sham-tDCS). The results showed that DNS was sensitive to all dynamic features, and DNES was primarily sensitive to Δφ and λ. Both indices were able to detect overall difference and capture significantly higher similarity in the ST groups than in the DT groups. Briefly, DNS and DNES appear to be effective tools for studying dynamically evolving brain networks, and may serve as alternatives to traditional static methods. They are particularly useful for analyzing longitudinal neuroimaging data in contexts such as neurodevelopment, aging, and recovery from illness.
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.