Identification and Classification of Hubs in Brain Networks

Brain regions in the mammalian cerebral cortex are linked by a complex network of fiber bundles. These inter-regional networks have previously been analyzed in terms of their node degree, structural motif, path length and clustering coefficient distributions. In this paper we focus on the identification and classification of hub regions, which are thought to play pivotal roles in the coordination of information flow. We identify hubs and characterize their network contributions by examining motif fingerprints and centrality indices for all regions within the cerebral cortices of both the cat and the macaque. Motif fingerprints capture the statistics of local connection patterns, while measures of centrality identify regions that lie on many of the shortest paths between parts of the network. Within both cat and macaque networks, we find that a combination of degree, motif participation, betweenness centrality and closeness centrality allows for reliable identification of hub regions, many of which have previously been functionally classified as polysensory or multimodal. We then classify hubs as either provincial (intra-cluster) hubs or connector (inter-cluster) hubs, and proceed to show that lesioning hubs of each type from the network produces opposite effects on the small-world index. Our study presents an approach to the identification and classification of putative hub regions in brain networks on the basis of multiple network attributes and charts potential links between the structural embedding of such regions and their functional roles

The past, present, and future of the Brain Imaging Data Structure (BIDS)

The Brain Imaging Data Structure (BIDS) is a community-driven standard for the organization of data and metadata from a growing range of neuroscience modalities. This paper is meant as a history of how the standard has developed and grown over time. We outline the principles behind the project, the mechanisms by which it has been extended, and some of the challenges being addressed as it evolves. We also discuss the lessons learned through the project, with the aim of enabling researchers in other domains to learn from the success of BIDS

Safety, immunogenicity, and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines given as fourth-dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 and a third dose of BNT162b2 (COV-BOOST): a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised trial

Background Some high-income countries have deployed fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccines, but the clinical need, effectiveness, timing, and dose of a fourth dose remain uncertain. We aimed to investigate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of fourth-dose boosters against COVID-19.Methods The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third-dose boosters at 18 sites in the UK. This sub-study enrolled participants who had received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) as their third dose in COV-BOOST and randomly assigned them (1:1) to receive a fourth dose of either BNT162b2 (30 µg in 0·30 mL; full dose) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 50 µg in 0·25 mL; half dose) via intramuscular injection into the upper arm. The computer-generated randomisation list was created by the study statisticians with random block sizes of two or four. Participants and all study staff not delivering the vaccines were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity, and immunogenicity (antispike protein IgG titres by ELISA and cellular immune response by ELISpot). We compared immunogenicity at 28 days after the third dose versus 14 days after the fourth dose and at day 0 versus day 14 relative to the fourth dose. Safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the per-protocol population, which comprised all participants who received a fourth-dose booster regardless of their SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. Immunogenicity was primarily analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprising seronegative participants who had received a fourth-dose booster and had available endpoint data. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 73765130, and is ongoing.Findings Between Jan 11 and Jan 25, 2022, 166 participants were screened, randomly assigned, and received either full-dose BNT162b2 (n=83) or half-dose mRNA-1273 (n=83) as a fourth dose. The median age of these participants was 70·1 years (IQR 51·6–77·5) and 86 (52%) of 166 participants were female and 80 (48%) were male. The median interval between the third and fourth doses was 208·5 days (IQR 203·3–214·8). Pain was the most common local solicited adverse event and fatigue was the most common systemic solicited adverse event after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster doses. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose with BNT162b2 were related to the study vaccine. In the BNT162b2 group, geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration at day 28 after the third dose was 23 325 ELISA laboratory units (ELU)/mL (95% CI 20 030–27 162), which increased to 37 460 ELU/mL (31 996–43 857) at day 14 after the fourth dose, representing a significant fold change (geometric mean 1·59, 95% CI 1·41–1·78). There was a significant increase in geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration from 28 days after the third dose (25 317 ELU/mL, 95% CI 20 996–30 528) to 14 days after a fourth dose of mRNA-1273 (54 936 ELU/mL, 46 826–64 452), with a geometric mean fold change of 2·19 (1·90–2·52). The fold changes in anti-spike protein IgG titres from before (day 0) to after (day 14) the fourth dose were 12·19 (95% CI 10·37–14·32) and 15·90 (12·92–19·58) in the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 groups, respectively. T-cell responses were also boosted after the fourth dose (eg, the fold changes for the wild-type variant from before to after the fourth dose were 7·32 [95% CI 3·24–16·54] in the BNT162b2 group and 6·22 [3·90–9·92] in the mRNA-1273 group).Interpretation Fourth-dose COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines are well tolerated and boost cellular and humoral immunity. Peak responses after the fourth dose were similar to, and possibly better than, peak responses after the third dose

Deep brain stimulation versus motor cortex stimulation for neuropathic pain: A minireview of the literature and proposal for future research

The treatment of neuropathic pain remains a public health concern. A growing cohort of patients is plagued by medically refractory, unrelenting severe neuropathic pain that ruins their quality of life and productivity. For this group, neurosurgery can offer two different kinds of neuromodulation that may help: deep brain simulation (DBS) and motor cortex stimulation (MCS). Unfortunately, there is no consensus on how to perform these procedures, which stimulation parameters to select, how to measure success, and which patients may benefit. This brief review highlights the literature supporting each technique and attempts to provide some comparisons and contrasts between DBS and MCS for the treatment of neuropathic pain. Finally, we highlight the current unanswered questions in the field and suggest future research strategies that may advance the care of our patients with neuropathic pain

Not Lost in Translation: Neural Responses Shared Across Languages

How similar are the brains of listeners who hear the same content expressed in different languages? We directly compared the functional magnetic resonance (fMRI) brain responses of English speakers and Russian speakers who listened to a real-life Russian narrative and its English translation. During the translation we tried to preserve the content of the narrative while reducing the structural similarities across languages. The story evoked similar brain responses across languages, which were invariant to the structural changes, beginning just outside early auditory areas and extending through temporal, parietal and frontal cerebral cortices. Surprisingly, the inter-language similarity in these areas is nearly as strong as the similarity of the brain responses within each language group. The present results demonstrate that the human brain processes reallife information in a manner that is largely insensitive to the language in which that information is conveyed. The methods introduced here can potentially be used to quantify the transmission of meaning across cultural and linguistic boundaries

Not Lost in Translation: Neural Responses Shared Across Languages

How similar are the brains of listeners who hear the same content expressed in different languages? We directly compared the functional magnetic resonance (fMRI) brain responses of English speakers and Russian speakers who listened to a real-life Russian narrative and its English translation. During the translation we tried to preserve the content of the narrative while reducing the structural similarities across languages. The story evoked similar brain responses across languages, which were invariant to the structural changes, beginning just outside early auditory areas and extending through temporal, parietal and frontal cerebral cortices. Surprisingly, the inter-language similarity in these areas is nearly as strong as the similarity of the brain responses within each language group. The present results demonstrate that the human brain processes real-life information in a manner that is largely insensitive to the language in which that information is conveyed. The methods introduced here can potentially be used to quantify the transmission of meaning across cultural and linguistic boundaries