ArticleScientific reports2026
Commonalities and distinctions of static and dynamic functional connectivity density between left and right temporal lobe epilepsy.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To comprehensively examine static and dynamic functional connectivity density (FCD) in left temporal lobe epilepsy (LTLE) and right temporal lobe epilepsy (RTLE). For 46 LTLE patients, 43 RTLE patients, and 53 healthy controls (HCs), T1-weighted structural images and resting-state functional images were collected. Static FCD and corresponding temporal dynamic FCD (dFCD) obtained via a sliding window approach were measured and compared. Additionally, seed-based functional connectivity (FC) analysis was executed. Relationships between cognitive scores and FCD or dFCD values were analyzed. Compared with HCs, LTLE and RTLE patients presented reduced static FCD values in the ipsilateral lateral temporal lobe. However, for LTLE, the FCD in the lateral temporal lobe contralateral to the epileptic focus also decreased. In RTLE patients, the FCD and dFCD in the left occipital lobe increased, whereas the dFCD in the left cerebellum decreased. FC analysis (seed: left middle temporal gyrus) demonstrated that LTLE patients had a wider range of aberrant brain regions than RTLE patients did. However, the left occipital lobe-based FC reductions were detected only in the RTLE patients. FCD and dFCD revealed moderate discrimination abilities between LTLE and RTLE. This study reveals that while both LTLE and RTLE share reduced static FCD in the ipsilateral temporal lobe, indicating common global network impairment, they exhibit distinct disruption profiles: LTLE presents more bilateral and widespread alterations, whereas RTLE specifically involves the occipital lobe and cerebellum. These findings consolidate TLE as a system-level disorder with lateralized network phenotypes. Integrating static and dynamic FCD provides a comprehensive framework for elucidating whole-brain network abnormalities and the associated pathophysiological and compensatory mechanisms in TLE.
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.