Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have been widely used in diverse brain network analysis tasks based on preprocessed functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data. However, their performances are constrained due to high feature sparsity and inherent limitations of domain knowledge within uni-modal neurographs. Meanwhile, large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated powerful representation capabilities. Combining LLMs with GNNs presents a promising direction for brain network analysis. While LLMs and MLLMs have emerged in neuroscience, integration of LLMs with graph-based data remains unexplored. In this work, we deal with these issues by incorporating LLM's powerful representation and generalization capabilities. Considering great cost for directly tuning LLMs, we instead function LLM as enhancer to boost GNN's performance on downstream tasks. Our method, namely BLEG, can be divided into three stages. We firstly prompt LLM to get augmented texts for fMRI graph data, then we design a LLM-LM instruction tuning method to get enhanced textual representations at a relatively lower cost. GNN is trained together for coarsened alignment. Finally we finetune an adapter after GNN for given downstream tasks. Alignment loss between LM and GNN logits is designed to further enhance GNN's representation. Extensive experiments on different datasets confirmed BLEG's superiority.Code can be available at https://github.com/KamonRiderDR/BLEG.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: A illustration of our method. GNN-based methods have limited performance. LLM methods require great training cost. Our method aims to enhance GNN’s performance with much less training cost.
Figure 2: The overall framework of BLEG. (1) We prompt LLM to generate augmented text data for input graph. (2) A smaller LM is trained through instruction tuning based on generated textual data. GNN is trained together for coarsened alignment. (3) GNN tuning for certain tasks. Logit from LM is utilized to boost GNN’s representations.
Methods
HCP
ADHD
MDD
ABIDE
ACC
SEN
ACC
SEN
ACC
SEN
ACC
SEN
GCN
64.03 ± 1.21
55.51 ± 2.88
66.74 ± 1.47
31.83 ± 2.33
62.38 ± 0.37
70.88 ± 1.94
69.14 ± 0.84
64.07 ± 2.20
GAT
65.72 ± 0.67
60.91 ± 3.26
66.56 ± 0.30
32.31 ± 1.56
63.05 ± 0.35
69.30 ± 2.16
68.79 ± 0.74
63.83 ± 3.23
GraphSAGE
66.87 ± 0.32
61.32 ± 2.71
67.80 ± 0.37
31.52 ± 2.54
63.29 ± 0.27
69.48 ± 1.53
70.74 ± 0.89
65.52 ± 2.81
GraphTrans
67.46 ± 0.55
62.71 ± 3.17
67.00 ± 0.37
31.85 ± 2.54
63.37 ± 0.27
68.31 ± 1.93
68.41 ± 1.20
62.79 ± 2.75
BrainGNN
66.46 ± 2.12
62.92 ± 2.45
67.16 ± 2.01
32.75 ± 3.31
63.25 ± 1.06
68.91 ± 2.76
70.03 ± 1.69
62.80 ± 4.19
Table 1: Comparison results on public datasets. We run 10 times for each model and record the corresponding average acc ± std (%). The best results are marked bold , and second best underline .
Methods
GCN
GraphTrans
BrainGNN
BrainNPT
ContrastPool
BLEG (medium)
BLEG (large)
Qwen3-8B
ACC
71.79 ± 1.07
70.50 ± 0.73
71.06 ± 1.05
70.25 ± 1.55
71.11 ± 0.73
75.38 ± 0.63
75.21 ± 1.01
75.82 ± 0.77
SEN
85.70 ± 2.46
86.07 ± 1.84
84.00 ± 1.81
83.00 ± 1.59
86.85 ± 1.94
87.03 ± 0.89
86.77 ± 1.27
87.03 ± 1.58
SPE
50.60 ± 5.41
50.92 ± 3.03
48.77 ± 2.12
49.21 ± 3.30
52.55 ± 3.91
58.31 ± 2.72
58.50 ± 1.93
58.81 ± 2.00
F1
78.50 ± 0.67
78.43 ± 0.49
77.18 ± 1.92
77.27 ± 0.74
78.43 ± 0.49
79.35 ± 1.66
80.78 ± 1.72
79.81 ± 1.58
AUC
68.15 ± 1.71
65.70 ± 1.16
66.39 ± 0.61
67.53 ± 1.03
68.70 ± 1.16
70.77 ± 1.16
70.78 ± 1.24
69.43 ± 2.03
Table 2: Comparison results on private dataset. We run 10 times for each model and record the corresponding average acc ± std (%). The best results are marked bold , and second best underline .
Table 3: k -shot few-shot experiments. We run ten times and record average accuracy.
Figure 3: (a)–(b) k -shot experiments on different datasets. (c) Ablation studies on different datasets. (d) Biomarker visualizations on ABIDE, (e) ADHD and (f) zhongdaxinxiang datasets.
Figure 4: Few shot results on different ratios.
Figure 5: Text generation for ZDXX dataset from LM.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 6: Prompt design for given FC graph.
Figure 7: An example for prompt response from LLM of ABIDE dataset.
Figure 8: Preprocess of fMRI data and construction for FC dataset.
Datasets
Tasks
Samples
Nodes ( ∣V∣ )
Classes
Categories
ABIDE
ASD diagnosis
618
90
2
{HC, ASD}
ADHD
ADHD diagnosis
938
90
2
{HC, ADHD}
HCP
Gender classification
1039
90
2
{Male, Female}
Rest-meta-MDD
MDD diagnosis
2165
90
2
{HC, MDD}
zhongdaxinxiang
MDD diagnosis
520
90
2
{HC, MDD}
Appendix
Table 4: More details of datasets.
Types
Parameters
Values
Training Arguments
Epochs
5
Dataset Length
4760
Batch Size
32
Learning Rate
5×10−5
LM Settings
Model
BioGPT
Parameters
347M (1.57GB)
Appendix
Table 5: Hyper-parameter settings for instruct-tuning.
Types
Parameters
Values
Training Arguments
Epochs
150
Early Stop
50
Batch Size
[32,64,128]
Learning Rate
[0.0005,0.0001]
Weight Decay
[0,0.0001]
LoRA rank
64
Appendix
Table 6: Hyper-parameter settings for supervised fine-tuning.
Large Language Models have achieved remarkable success in language understanding and reasoning, and their multimodal extensions enable comprehension of images, video, and audio. Inspired by this, foundation models for brain functional connectivity networks derived from resting-state fMRI have shown promise in clinical tasks. However, existing methods do not align FCNs with the text modality, limiting the ability of LLMs to directly understand FCNs. To address this, we propose FCN-LLM, a framework that enables LLMs to understand FCNs through graph-level, multi-task instruction tuning. Our approach employs a multi-scale FCN encoder capturing brain-region, functional subnetwork, and whole-brain features, projecting them into the semantic space of LLM. We design multi-paradigm instruction tasks covering 19 subject-specific attributes across demographics, phenotypes, and psychiatric conditions. A multi-stage learning strategy first aligns FCN embeddings with the LLM and then jointly fine-tunes the entire model to capture high-level semantic information. Experiments on a large-scale, multi-site FCN database show that FCN-LLM achieves strong zero-shot generalization on unseen datasets, outperforming conventional supervised and foundation models. This work introduces a new paradigm for integrating brain functional networks with LLMs, offering a flexible and interpretable framework for neuroscience.
Brain network analysis is crucial for understanding cognition and neurological disorders, yet existing deep learning methods mainly treat connectome analysis as a graph-to-logit classification problem, offering limited explanatory reasoning. Large language models (LLMs) provide a promising interface for knowledge-intensive scientific analysis, but directly applying general-purpose LLMs to brain networks remains challenging due to the structure-language gap, limited neuroscience grounding, and overconfident positive predictions. In this paper, we propose BrainAgent, an agentic LLM framework for knowledge-enhanced brain network analysis. BrainAgent reformulates connectome classification as an iterative process of topology-aware understanding, external retrieval, reasoning, and reflection. Specifically, it first converts raw brain networks into compact multi-level structural descriptions through brain-specific analysis tools, then retrieves relevant neuroscience knowledge and task-specific cases to ground the reasoning process, and finally generates structured predictions with reflective verification. Experiments on four public rs-fMRI datasets show that BrainAgent consistently improves different closed-source and open-source LLM backbones over direct prompting and standard reasoning baselines. Further ablation and interpretability analyses demonstrate the effectiveness of each component and show that BrainAgent produces more comprehensive, multi-level, and verifiable explanations.These results indicate that agentic LLMs provide a practical route toward interpretable and knowledge-grounded brain network analysis.
Jiaxing Li, Rui Dong, Muyao Tang +1
School of Computer Science and Engineering, Southeast University
Effective brain disease diagnosis requires the synergy of brain connectivity patterns and high-level semantic knowledge. Existing methods, however, largely treat semantics from large language models (LLMs) as auxiliary features or supervision, limiting their direct role in decision-making and constraining classification stability and robustness. To overcome this, we propose a semantic-aligned brain network framework that actively integrates LLM-derived semantics into the prediction process. Specifically, ROI-level semantics are first incorporated via global self-attention to enrich node representations and provide whole-brain context. Multi-scale hypergraphs are then constructed to explicitly model functional subnetworks and multi-ROI interactions, addressing the locality limitations of traditional GNNs and capturing high-order dependencies. Finally, a decision-level semantic alignment mechanism selectively injects patient-specific textual embeddings into graph representations, enabling semantics to directly guide predictions without perturbing the underlying network structure. Experiments on public brain network datasets ABIDE and ADHD-200 demonstrate state-of-the-art performance, enhanced stability, and improved interpretability, particularly in small-sample settings.
Yidan Xu, Xiangmin Han, Rundong Xue +1
Hangzhou Dianzi University, China · Tsinghua University, China · Xi’an Jiaotong University, China