Back

Dimensionality reduction establishes specificity in lesion network mapping

Edelman, S.; Elias, U.; Arzy, s.

2026-01-30 neurology
10.64898/2026.01.29.26345138 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundLesion network mapping (LNM) has emerged as a powerful tool for linking focal brain lesions to distributed functional networks. However, the biological specificity of these networks has been questioned. Recent mathematical derivations suggest that LNM-derived maps may trivially track the normative connectomes global degree vector rather than specific symptom-related topography, potentially rendering them biologically nonspecific. MethodsWe introduced a rigorous validation pipeline to distinguish true network specificity from low-dimensional connectome artifacts. We projected lesion connectivity maps into a low-dimensional feature space defined by the principal gradients and eigenmodes of the normative connectome. We applied this framework to a large-scale dataset of 858 lesions associated with four distinct clinical cohorts: obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), schizophrenia, aphasia, and epilepsy. We performed multivariate classification to determine if symptom-associated lesions occupied distinct regions of the functional manifold compared to null distributions. ResultsOur analysis revealed a sharp dissociation in network specificity across disorders. While schizophrenia-associated lesions were indistinguishable from null models (Accuracy=0.51, p=0.412), confirming the "degree artifact" hypothesis for this cohort, other disorders displayed significant network specificity. Lesions associated with OCD (Accuracy=0.58, p=0.036), aphasia (Accuracy=0.60, p=0.007), and epilepsy (Accuracy=0.61, p=0.002) occupied distinct regions of the functional manifold significantly different from the normative connectome baseline. ConclusionsThese findings demonstrate that while LNM is sensitive to connectome-level artifacts, it retains genuine biological specificity for distinct clinical phenotypes. The proposed linear projection framework offers a standardized, computationally efficient benchmark for assessing network specificity against methodological noise.

Matching journals

The top 4 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.