ArticleCNS neuroscience & therapeutics2026
Microstate-Specific Cross-Frequency Coupling Networks: A Spatiotemporal Framework for MCI Identification.
Article in CNS neuroscience & therapeutics, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThis study integrated EEG microstates with cross-frequency coupling networks to develop a novel spatiotemporal framework for the early identification of mild cognitive impairment (MCI).
methodsResting-state EEG was recorded from 22 patients with MCI and 22 age-matched healthy controls. Topographic clustering was used to derive four canonical microstates (A-D). Source reconstruction was then performed to extract time series from seven resting-state networks. For each microstate, a microstate-specific cross-frequency coupling network was constructed by computing n:m phase synchronization across the delta, theta, alpha, and beta bands among these networks. Classification was performed using Maximum Relevance Minimum Redundancy (mRMR) feature selection and a nested cross-validated CatBoost classifier.
resultsSignificant disruptions in cross-frequency phase synchronization were observed within microstates A, C, and D among patients with MCI. The classification model demonstrated its highest performance within microstate D, achieving a balanced accuracy of 84.4%. The features most effective in discriminating between groups primarily involved the limbic network in the theta band, the frontoparietal and dorsal attention networks in the alpha band, and the sensorimotor network in the delta band.
conclusionMCI is associated with microstate-dependent impairments in cross-frequency synchronization, which suggests compromised spatiotemporal integration across large-scale brain networks. The microstate-specific cross-frequency coupling network framework proposed offers a novel and physiologically interpretable EEG biomarker for the early diagnosis of MCI.
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.