Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41301173›Full record

ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Quantifying Similarity of Dynamic Brain Networks: Two Novel Indices for Structural Change and Temporal Evolution.

Xiaocheng Wang, Yongquan He, Tian Zhou, Li Zhang, Shan Fang, Runjie Ni, Weidong Chen, Ruidong Cheng, Xiangming Ye, Dongrong Xu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Xiaocheng WangCollege of Computer Science and Technology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, China.ORCID 0009-0008-6293-6986
Yongquan HeSchool of Psychology and Cognitive Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China.
Tian ZhouCollege of Computer Science and Technology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, China.
Li ZhangDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, People's Hospital of Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou 310014, China.
Shan FangDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, People's Hospital of Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou 310014, China.
Runjie NiHangzhou Shenyulan Medical Tech Co., Ltd., Hangzhou 310018, China.
Weidong ChenQiushi Academy for Advanced Studies, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, China.
Ruidong ChengDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, People's Hospital of Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou 310014, China.
Xiangming YeDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, People's Hospital of Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou 310014, China.ORCID 0009-0002-7510-5408
Dongrong XuDepartment of Psychiatry, Columbia University & New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY 10032, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4682-1587

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

braindynamic networkindexstructural changestemporal evolutiontime points

Identifiers

PMID41301173
PMCPMC12650727

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.