Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39948086›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Comparison of derivative-based and correlation-based methods to estimate effective connectivity in neural networks.

Niklas Laasch, Wilhelm Braun, Lisa Knoff, Jan Bielecki, Claus C Hilgetag

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

5 authors.

Niklas LaaschInstitute of Computational Neuroscience, Center for Experimental Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. niklas.laasch@posteo.de.
Wilhelm BraunInstitute of Computational Neuroscience, Center for Experimental Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. w.braun@uke.de.
Lisa KnoffInstitute of Computational Neuroscience, Center for Experimental Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Jan BieleckiFaculty of Engineering, Kiel University, Kaiserstrasse 2, 24143, Kiel, Germany.
Claus C HilgetagInstitute of Computational Neuroscience, Center for Experimental Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Inferring and understanding the underlying connectivity structure of a system solely from the observed activity of its constituent components is a challenge in many areas of science. In neuroscience, techniques for estimating connectivity are paramount when attempting to understand the network structure of neural systems from their recorded activity patterns. To date, no universally accepted method exists for the inference of effective connectivity, which describes how the activity of a neural node mechanistically affects the activity of other nodes. Here, focussing on purely excitatory networks of small to intermediate size and continuous node dynamics, we provide a systematic comparison of different approaches for estimating effective connectivity. Starting with the Hopf neuron model in conjunction with known ground truth structural connectivity, we reconstruct the system's connectivity matrix using a variety of algorithms. We show that, in sparse non-linear networks with delays, combining a lagged-cross-correlation (LCC) approach with a recently published derivative-based covariance analysis method provides the most reliable estimation of the known ground truth connectivity matrix. We outline how the parameters of the Hopf model, including those controlling the bifurcation, noise, and delay distribution, affect this result. We also show that in linear networks, LCC has comparable performance to a method based on transfer entropy, at a drastically lower computational cost. We highlight that LCC works best for small sparse networks, and show how performance decreases in larger and less sparse networks. Applying the method to linear dynamics without time delays, we find that it does not outperform derivative-based methods. We comment on this finding in light of recent theoretical results for such systems. Employing the Hopf model, we then use the estimated structural connectivity matrix as the basis for a forward simulation of the system dynamics, in order to recreate the observed node activity patterns. We show that, under certain conditions, the best method, LCC, results in higher trace-to-trace correlations than derivative-based methods for sparse noise-driven systems. Finally, we apply the LCC method to empirical biological data. Choosing a suitable threshold for binarization, we reconstruct the structural connectivity of a subset of the nervous system of the nematode C. elegans. We show that the computationally simple LCC method performs better than another recently published, computationally more expensive reservoir computing-based method. We apply different methods to this dataset and find that they all lead to similar performances. Our results show that a comparatively simple method can be used to reliably estimate directed effective connectivity in sparse neural systems in the presence of spatio-temporal delays and noise. We provide concrete suggestions for the estimation of effective connectivity in a scenario common in biological research, where only neuronal activity of a small set of neurons, but not connectivity or single-neuron and synapse dynamics, are known.

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalNerve NetNeural Networks, ComputerNeuronsAlgorithmsAnimalsC. elegansComputational connectomicsDynamical systemsEffective connectivityHopf modelOrnstein–Uhlenbeck processStructural connectivity

Identifiers

PMID39948086
PMCPMC11825726

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.