Back

Energetic implications of fMRI-based nodal complex network metrics: a complex picture unfolds across diverse brain states

Feng, S.; Coursey, S. E.; Nolin, S. A.; Zurcher, N. R.; Wey, H.-Y.; Polimeni, J. R.; Villien, M.; Bhanot, A.; Rosen, B. R.; Hooker, J. M.; Chen, J. E.

2026-01-09 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.01.08.694967 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Functional MRI-based graph theory has provided profound insights into the brains functional organization, yet the neuroenergetic meaning of widely used graph-theoretical metrics remains poorly understood. Although resting-state research suggests a positive coupling between network topology and glucose metabolism, it remains unclear whether this relationship reflects a general principle of brain organization or a state-specific phenomenon. Here, we test the neuroenergetic interpretability of nodal graph-theoretical metrics by linking complex network topology to cerebral glucose consumption across diverse brain states. Leveraging simultaneous functional PET-MRI, we directly compare state-dependent fluctuations in glucose consumption and network topology during sensory, cognitive, and arousal conditions. We further assess metabolic-topological couplings in disease through a meta-analysis of resting-state FDG-PET and fMRI studies involving Alzheimers disease, Parkinsons disease, major depressive disorder, and schizophrenia. Our results show that nodal graph-theoretical metrics exhibit state- and network-dependent metabolic associations, with coupling patterns diverging across experimental and disease contexts. Notably, frontoparietal and attentional networks show more conserved metabolic-topological coupling than other large-scale networks across states. These findings underscore a dynamic, complex interplay between metabolic demand and complex network organization, highlighting the need for a nuanced interpretation of the energetic underpinnings of nodal graph-theoretical metrics in health and disease.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.