BioSync: Transformer-Based Cross-Modal Fusion for a Multimodal Physiological Digital Biomarker

The FDA-NIH BEST resource classifies biomarkers as diagnostic, monitoring, response/pharmacodynamic, predictive, prognostic, safety, or susceptibility/risk measures. A measure in any of these categories can be considered a digital biomarker when it is collected through digital health technology [15, 8]. The V3 framework organizes fitness-for-purpose evidence into verification, analytical validation, and clinical validation, spanning sensor performance through comparison of the derived measure with a reference clinical outcome [16]. BioSync has not yet undergone these stages (Section 7).

Kourtis et al. catalogued how mobile and wearable devices could operationalize the BEST categories for AD. Their candidate channels included gait and speech as well as physiological signals [21]. Piau et al. reviewed home-based monitoring technologies for MCI and early AD, calling for measurement that is both longitudinal and ecologically valid [30]. Qi et al. reviewed 431 studies and 86 AI models. Only 24 studies evaluated multimodal digital biomarkers, and external validation and calibration were rarely reported [31]. Xu et al. reported 91.8% accuracy for cognitive-impairment screening with hard-voting late fusion of language-derived digital biomarkers [42]. The result supports multimodal screening, but the fusion rule remains fixed across participants.

HRV reflects sympathetic and parasympathetic activity through the central autonomic network, which may be disrupted early in the AD pathological cascade [6, 24]. The reported direction and strength of the association vary across studies. Bateman et al. reported preliminary differences in HRV metrics during routine cognitive testing [6], whereas Marcolini et al. found limited evidence that HRV alone predicts cognitive and pathophysiological outcomes [26]. This disagreement supports treating HRV as one signal among several rather than as a stand-alone biomarker. Elevated theta-to-alpha ratios and reduced spectral or Lempel-Ziv complexity are replicated EEG correlates of amnestic MCI. Portable dry-electrode hardware can capture these measures in community or home settings [19, 7]. In the study by Boudaya et al., a joint EEG–HRV feature set outperformed either signal alone for MCI detection [7].

Actigraphy measures rest–activity fragmentation, circadian amplitude, and sleep efficiency. These measures have been linked to cognitive status and biological aging, including in cohorts of more than 80,000 participants used to validate the wearable-derived “CosinorAge” biomarker [36, 14]. Such cohort sizes illustrate the scalability of wrist actigraphy relative to EEG and HRV acquisition.

Early and late fusion are the two most common multimodal designs in the digital-biomarker literature [31, 22]. Early fusion concatenates features before classification, whereas late fusion combines modality-specific classifiers by voting or averaging. A published multimodal MCI framework uses weighted soft voting across cognitive-test and physiological features [22]. Another protocol combines cognitive and wearable physiological features recorded during virtual-reality speech interaction [41]. Beyond cognitive decline, cross-modal and multi-head attention have outperformed static fusion in several physiological-signal and clinical time-series tasks. Applications include EEG-peripheral fusion for emotion recognition [12] and progressive fusion of ECG with phonocardiogram signals for cardiovascular disease detection [23].

Bidirectional attention between EEG connectivity and ECG/HRV features has been used for cognitive-state recognition in flight safety [43], and self-supervised cross-temporal alignment has been used for asynchronous EEG–peripheral streams [20]. Kernel-based discriminant correlation fusion provides a non-attention example in autism-spectrum diagnosis [40]. Related applications include explainable electrophysiology fusion for sleep-stage classification [13] and outcome prediction in disorders of consciousness [4]. Collectively, these studies motivate testing subject-specific attention for cardiac, neural, and behavioral signals against static concatenation and voting.

Wearable and edge deployment constrain both computation and the transfer of physiological data.

Low-rank reparameterization was developed to adapt Transformer models with fewer trainable parameters [39, 17, 34]; the same subspace principle could reduce the parameter count of modality-specific encoders, as discussed in Section 7. Federated learning addresses data transfer by allowing institutions or device cohorts to train a shared model without centralizing raw data [28]. Federated learning has been applied to stress detection from smart-band heart-activity data [9], and reviews describe its use in privacy-preserving smart healthcare [2, 29]. Section 4 outlines how BioSync could use the same training arrangement.

Consider an unobserved physiological state $z$, such as the degree of central-autonomic-network disruption associated with cognitive decline or the degree of cardiac autonomic neuropathy associated with a metabolic complication. No wearable sensor measures $z$ directly. Each modality $m$ instead provides a noisy, partial projection,

where $g_{m}$ is a modality-specific, possibly nonlinear measurement function and $\sigma_{m}^{2}$ is the modality’s noise level. This noise may vary by subject and session, as with motion artifact in EEG or a loose wristband during actigraphy. In a factor-analytic or structural-equation view, an individual modality may estimate $z$ consistently but inefficiently. If the $\varepsilon_{m}$ are conditionally independent given $z$, classical estimation theory combines noisy estimates through a precision-weighted (inverse-variance-weighted) average,

which has lower variance than an individual $\hat{z}_{m}$ when multiple modalities carry information about $z$ under the stated assumptions. Kalman-filter sensor fusion uses the same principle. Section 4.3 treats the softmax-normalized attention weights as a learned analogue of $\sigma_{m}^{-2}$: the model can assign more weight to a modality when its representation is more informative for a particular recording. This analogy motivates the architecture but does not make attention weights calibrated estimates of measurement precision.

The measurement model justifies fusion when modalities provide independently noisy views of the same latent cause. Multivariate information theory addresses a second case in which information is present only in a joint observation.

Partial information decomposition (PID) separates the mutual information $I(Y;X_{1},\ldots,X_{M})$ that a set of modalities jointly carries about an outcome $Y$ into redundant, unique, and synergistic components. Synergistic information appears only in the joint configuration and cannot be recovered from a single modality or from the marginals. For example, an elevated LF/HF ratio may inform cognitive status only conditional on a simultaneous reduction in EEG spectral complexity. Together, the measurements may indicate autonomic dysregulation driven by the same central process that affects cortical dynamics rather than by an unrelated cardiovascular cause. HRV alone, EEG alone, or a parallel analysis without their interaction would miss this component. Fusion can therefore use information that emerges from the joint distribution. Late voting does not model feature-level cross-modal interactions, while linear early fusion represents only additive effects unless interaction terms are supplied explicitly [31, 22].

These arguments motivate a fusion mechanism that can represent non-additive interactions and reweight modalities by subject and recording when signal reliability varies. For the applications considered here, the mechanism should also accept different numbers of modality tokens without changing its core encoder.

Self-attention provides these operations [39]. Each modality embedding becomes a token; multi-head attention computes pairwise token interactions, and softmax-normalized weights produce data-dependent reweighting. Attention operates on a token sequence rather than a fixed concatenated vector, so the same encoder can process the two- and four-token configurations evaluated here. Adding a new modality still requires a corresponding input encoder and retraining. These specific properties, rather than the general approximation capacity of Transformers, motivate BioSync’s small encoder.

We assess fusion with six criteria derived from the BEST and V3 frameworks [15, 8, 16] and from the multimodal and information-theoretic arguments above. The criteria include properties not captured by classification accuracy:

1. 1.

   Graded validity: the biomarker should vary continuously with and correlate with the underlying severity of the condition rather than merely separate two discrete classes (Section 3; a diagnostic threshold is a downstream decision applied to a continuous measure, not the measure itself [8]).

2. 2.

   Multimodal information capture: the biomarker should draw on more of the available, complementary information than any single channel alone, including synergistic information recoverable only from the joint distribution of modalities (Section 3).

3. 3.

   Adaptive interpretability: the contribution of each input channel to the biomarker’s value should be recoverable per subject rather than only as a global coefficient fit across the cohort, so a clinician or researcher can inspect why the model produced a score for a person.

4. 4.

   Graceful degradation: performance should decline slowly rather than catastrophically when one channel is missing or unreliable, including through artifact corruption, because wearable deployments lose channels through battery, fit, or motion problems [16].

5. 5.

   Architectural generality: the fusion encoder should accommodate other modality sets and application domains without redesign of its core attention block, because a method restricted to one sensor combination has limited translational value [5].

6. 6.

   On-device and federated feasibility: the computation should be inexpensive enough for continuous, real-world, wearable-based monitoring, and compatible with training across multiple sites without centralizing raw data [15, 28].

Table 2 compares four designs: single-modality biomarkers, early fusion by concatenation, late fusion by voting as used in published multimodal MCI-screening methods [22, 42], and BioSync (Section 5.9). This comparison is central because accuracy alone does not measure adaptive interpretability, graceful degradation, or architectural generality, and it does not consistently favor BioSync in the synthetic experiments.

Let a participant be represented by a set of modality-specific feature vectors $\{x_{m}\}_{m=1}^{M}$, extracted from a fixed-length recording window using standard signal-processing pipelines (Section 4.2). BioSync learns a function

that outputs a continuous risk score $\hat{y}\in(0,1)$, defined as the BioSync Index (BSI), and an attention-weight vector $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$, $\sum_{m}\alpha_{m}=1$, summarizing each modality’s contribution to the fused token for that subject. Under the BEST taxonomy, the BSI is intended as a susceptibility/risk and monitoring biomarker: a composite, continuously valued indicator of physiological status rather than a diagnostic label [15, 8]. We evaluate this formulation with $M=4$ for cognitive decline and $M=2$ for metabolic-autonomic risk.

Domain 1: cognitive decline ($M=4$).

HRV. Inter-beat interval series derived from wearable photoplethysmography (PPG) or ECG provide six features: the time-domain measures SDNN, RMSSD, and pNN50; LF and HF power; and the LF/HF ratio. These measures are used in HRV–cognition studies [6, 24].

EEG. Portable dry-electrode EEG recordings provide six features: the theta-to-alpha power ratio, gamma-band spectral entropy, frontal theta power, parietal alpha power, beta-band power, and a Lempel-Ziv complexity index. The feature set follows the qEEG biomarker literature on early cognitive decline [19, 7].

Actigraphy. Wrist accelerometry provides six features: a rest–activity fragmentation index, circadian amplitude, sleep efficiency, step-count coefficient of variation, interdaily stability, and intradaily variability. These measures are used in actigraphy-biomarker studies [36, 14].

Speech. Brief spontaneous-speech recordings provide four acoustic-linguistic features: pause-to-speech ratio, articulation rate, pitch (fundamental-frequency) variability, and semantic density.

Speech digital-biomarker studies associate cognitive decline with increased pause time, slower articulation, reduced prosodic variability, and lower semantic or idea density [10, 42]. A smartphone or wearable microphone can capture these features separately from the cardiac, neural, and behavioral channels. Video-derived motor or gait features could be represented by an additional token, as discussed in Section 7.

Domain 2: metabolic-autonomic risk, structured around the AI-READI schema ($M=2$). This domain uses variables documented for the AI-READI wearable-activity-monitor data domain [1].

AI-READI is an NIH Bridge2AI project developing a FAIR multimodal dataset. Its public documentation describes more than 1,000 enrolled adults, a target of 4,000, and T2D severity ranging from no T2D to insulin-managed disease. Participants are recruited at three U.S. sites and wear a Garmin Vivosmart 5 during a 10-day home-monitoring period with 5-second sampling [1]. The documentation lists seven channels: heart rate (bpm), oxygen saturation (SpO₂%, during sleep only), step count, physical-activity calories, respiration rate derived from HRV, sleep duration, and a proprietary 0–100 device stress score computed from heart rate and HRV. Records use an Open mHealth-derived JSON schema. We group five of these variables into two tokens. The Cardiac-Autonomic token contains resting heart rate, respiration rate, and the device stress score; the Behavioral token contains step count and sleep duration.

The diabetic cardiac autonomic neuropathy (CAN) literature motivates this grouping: resting heart rate rises while HRV-derived measures fall with autonomic damage from chronic hyperglycemia, and daily activity and sleep duration decline with disease burden and complications. This study uses AI-READI’s public documentation rather than its controlled-access raw data. The synthetic metabolic cohort in Section 5 reproduces the documented schema through these two tokens and literature-seeded effect directions. The same feature grouping can be evaluated on raw AI-READI records after data-use approval, as described in Section 7.

Multimodal learning does not require modalities to share a sensor type, sampling rate, or physiological system when each carries information about the same outcome [5] (Section 3). Within each cross-validation fold, every feature is standardized to zero mean and unit variance using training-partition statistics only.

Figure 2 details the attention path from modality-specific measurements and features to the fusion token, BSI, and modality weights. The parallel linear path is introduced separately in Section 4.4 and is included in the high-level overview in Figure 1.

Each modality’s standardized feature vector $x_{m}$ is linearly projected into a shared $d$-dimensional embedding, treated as one token:

A learned fusion token $e_{\text{cls}}\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$, analogous to the [CLS] token in a text Transformer, is prepended to the modality sequence, giving $E=[e_{\text{cls}},e_{1},\ldots,e_{M}]\in\mathbb{R}^{(M+1)\times d}$. One multi-head self-attention block updates each token by attending to all tokens in the sequence:

computed independently for $h=1,\ldots,H$ heads of dimension $d_{h}=d/H$ and recombined with an output projection $W_{O}$. A residual connection and layer normalization follow. The block then applies a position-wise feed-forward network with a GELU nonlinearity before the second residual connection and layer normalization. Its fusion-token output row, $z=\mathrm{seq}_{0}$, supplies the fused representation for the BSI and the attention interpretation:

where $\mathrm{Attn}^{(h)}_{\text{cls}\rightarrow m}$ is the post-softmax weight from the fusion token to modality token $m$ in head $h$. Because the fusion-token query also attends to its own key, the raw modality weights sum to slightly less than one. We therefore report $\alpha_{m}\propto\mathrm{Attn}_{\text{cls}\rightarrow m}$, renormalized so that $\sum_{m}\alpha_{m}=1$, as a per-subject modality-relevance score. The construction computes token similarity after learned projections and represents the pairwise interactions described in Section 3.3. The same attention block processes the four-token cognitive-decline domain and the two-token metabolic-autonomic domain; each domain retains its own modality-specific input projections.

Sections 3 and 3.3 motivate attention for cross-modal interactions, but they do not imply that pure attention is the most direct way to recover the unique and redundant information captured by a linear model. A small Transformer must learn a linear decision boundary that logistic regression represents explicitly. We therefore use the wide-and-deep design introduced by Cheng et al. for recommender systems [11]. A linear (“wide”) path processes the concatenated standardized features in parallel with the Transformer (“deep”) path, and the two contributions are summed before the sigmoid,

where gradient descent jointly learns $w_{\text{deep}}$, $w_{\text{wide}}$, $b_{\text{wide}}$, and the Transformer parameters. Setting $w_{\text{deep}}=0$ recovers the concatenation model, so the wide-and-deep hypothesis class contains the baseline’s linear decision functions. Setting $w_{\text{wide}}=0$ recovers the pure-attention model in Section 4.3. This containment concerns representational capacity; finite-sample optimization and regularization can still yield lower held-out performance. The experiments use BioSync to denote the full wide-and-deep architecture and compare it with both components (Sections 5.4 and 5.7).

Because each modality encoder $W_{m}$ processes a local feature vector, BioSync is compatible in principle with federated training. Clinics or wearable cohorts could train local model copies and share parameter updates with an aggregator under federated averaging [28], as demonstrated in wearable and IoT biomedical monitoring [9, 2, 29].

Low-rank reparameterization could reduce the trainable parameter count of the modality encoders and attention projections. This proposed extension follows subspace adaptation for larger Transformer models [17, 33, 34] and is discussed in Section 7.

Federated training is not implemented or evaluated in this study. A future experiment could train across AI-READI’s controlled-access records, the cognitive-decline cohort under collection at our laboratory, and other wearable cohorts without centralizing raw physiological recordings.

The experiments use two synthetic, literature-informed cohorts to examine the six criteria in Section 3.4. Section 5.5 evaluates graded validity; Sections 5.4–5.5 evaluate multimodal information capture and modality-level interpretability; and Section 5.6 evaluates graceful degradation. Using the same attention block for four- and two-modality domains tests architectural generality. On-device and federated feasibility are assessed from model structure rather than deployment measurements (Section 6). No patient data were used, and the reported metrics do not estimate clinical diagnostic performance.

Cognitive cohort ($M=4$). We generated $N=360$ profiles: 180 healthy-leaning and 180 MCI-leaning. Each profile received a continuous latent severity value $\text{sev}\in[0,1]$, drawn from Beta(2,6) for the healthy-leaning group and Beta(4,2.2) for the MCI-leaning group. The overlapping distributions avoid trivial class separation. Twenty-two features—six HRV, six EEG, six actigraphy, and four speech—were generated as linear functions of severity plus independent Gaussian noise. The feature definitions and literature-seeded effect directions are given in Section 4.2.

Metabolic cohort, AI-READI schema ($M=2$). An independent set of $N=360$ profiles contained 180 lower-severity and 180 higher-severity T2D-leaning cases. A latent glycemic/autonomic severity value was drawn from the same Beta(2,6) and Beta(4,2.2) distributions.

Five features were generated as linear functions of severity plus Gaussian noise and grouped into two AI-READI-schema tokens: Cardiac-Autonomic (resting heart rate, respiration rate, and device stress score) and Behavioral (step count and sleep duration). Literature-seeded directions specify increasing resting heart rate, respiration rate, and stress score, and decreasing step count and sleep duration, with increasing severity.

In both cohorts, the continuous severity value is not used as a training target; it is reserved for the correlation analysis in Section 5.5. Features are standardized within each cross-validation fold using training-partition statistics only.

We used 5-fold stratified cross-validation in each cohort. The evaluated models were (1) separate logistic-regression baselines for each modality or token; (2) early fusion by logistic regression on all concatenated standardized features; and (3) the BioSync wide-and-deep encoder with embedding width $d=8$, $H=2$ attention heads, and one encoder block (Section 4.4). BioSync was implemented in JAX with automatic differentiation. We compared Adam with plain gradient descent and found the latter more stable at this dataset and model scale after tuning the learning rate. All reported BioSync results therefore use plain gradient descent for 500 epochs with $\ell_{2}$ weight decay. Accuracy, F1-score, and AUC are reported as means across the five folds. The severity analysis uses pooled out-of-fold BSI values. We also evaluated BioSync without the wide linear path and swept embedding width and head count (Section 5.7).

Table 1 reports the cross-validated results. In the cognitive cohort, single-modality accuracy ranged from 0.753 to 0.822 and AUC from 0.836 to 0.918. Concatenation exceeded every single-modality model, with accuracy 0.850 and AUC 0.926. BioSync had the highest AUC (0.928), while its accuracy (0.842) and F1-score (0.839) were numerically below concatenation (0.850 and 0.847) and differed by less than one fold-level standard deviation. In the metabolic AI-READI-schema cohort, the Cardiac-Autonomic token (accuracy 0.728, AUC 0.799) outperformed the Behavioral token (accuracy 0.639, AUC 0.696). Concatenation reached accuracy 0.756 and AUC 0.823. BioSync had the highest accuracy (0.764) and F1-score (0.766), whereas its AUC (0.814) was lower than concatenation’s (0.823). Figure 3 shows the pooled out-of-fold ROC curves.

Across the six cohort–metric combinations, BioSync ranks first for cognitive-cohort AUC and for metabolic-cohort accuracy and F1-score. The remaining differences are within or near one cross-validation standard deviation; these samples of $N=360$ do not support claims of large effects.

We use AUC as the primary discrimination metric because the BSI is continuous and AUC does not depend on a selected classification threshold. AUC is also commonly reported in the digital-biomarker literature reviewed in Section 2 [31]. On this metric, BioSync ranks first in the cognitive cohort; in the metabolic cohort, the fold-level variation does not support a clear difference from concatenation.

BioSync without the linear path did not exceed concatenation (Section 5.7). On cognitive-cohort AUC, adding the wide path increased performance from 0.911 for pure attention to 0.928 for the full model, compared with 0.926 for concatenation.

Pooled out-of-fold BSI values correlated with latent severity, which was not used as a training target: $r=0.905$ ($p<10^{-134}$) in the cognitive cohort and $r=0.681$ ($p<10^{-50}$) in the metabolic AI-READI-schema cohort (Figure 4). These correlations assess the graded validity criterion in Section 3.4. A linear model trained directly to regress concatenated features on severity achieved higher correlations ($r=0.952$ cognitive and $r=0.696$ metabolic), as expected for a model optimized on that target; the comparison therefore does not favor BioSync. The renormalized fusion-token attention weights in Figure 5 are close to uniform: approximately 0.25 per modality in the cognitive cohort and 0.50 per token in the metabolic cohort. This pattern is consistent with the synthetic design, in which modality reliability is comparable and does not vary systematically by subject. The absence of weight collapse provides a clean-data reference for the heterogeneous-reliability experiment in Section 5.6, but uniform mean weights alone do not demonstrate adaptive interpretability.

The rationale in Section 3.3 predicts that data-dependent weighting should be most useful when modality reliability varies across recordings. To test this condition, we replace one randomly selected modality with high-variance noise for each test subject with probability $p$, termed the corruption rate. This procedure approximates complete channel failure rather than the detailed temporal structure of device slippage or motion artifact. During training, both BioSync and concatenation receive identical modality-dropout augmentation, with each modality corrupted independently with probability 0.3. Test-time differences therefore follow from how the two models use the same corruption exposure.

Figure 6 reports AUC for $p\in\{0,0.1,\ldots,0.5\}$. In the cognitive cohort, the models are similar at $p=0$ (0.929 BioSync vs. 0.931 concatenation). BioSync leads at every nonzero rate, reaching 0.891 versus 0.865 at $p=0.5$, and its margin increases monotonically. Results in the metabolic cohort are less stable. Concatenation leads at $p=0$ (0.824 vs. 0.794) and $p=0.1$ (0.771 vs. 0.766); the models are effectively tied at $p=0.2$ (0.775 vs. 0.774); BioSync leads at $p=0.3$ (0.765 vs. 0.741); concatenation leads at $p=0.4$ (0.738 vs. 0.722); and BioSync leads at $p=0.5$ (0.663 vs. 0.657). Corrupting one of two tokens affects a larger fraction of the metabolic input than corrupting one of four cognitive tokens, and the $N=360$ sample does not resolve each small difference. Thus, the cognitive cohort supports the predicted attention advantage at five of six rates, whereas the metabolic cohort shows no monotonic ordering. Wearable channels can be lost through battery depletion, poor skin contact, motion artifact, or device removal [16]; the matched experiment measures one simplified form of the “graceful degradation” criterion in Table 2.

The first ablation isolates the linear path introduced in Section 4.4. In the cognitive cohort, pure-attention BioSync obtained accuracy 0.847 and AUC 0.911, while the wide-and-deep model obtained 0.842 and 0.928. The full model therefore exceeded both pure attention (0.911) and concatenation (0.926) on AUC, the primary discrimination metric, but not on accuracy. Fold-to-fold variation does not support a large accuracy difference among the three models.

We also varied cognitive-cohort embedding width $d\in\{4,8,16\}$ and attention heads $H\in\{1,2,4\}$, subject to $H\mid d$ (Figure 7). Across the grid, accuracy ranged from 0.831 to 0.858 and AUC from 0.915 to 0.932; the prespecified $d=8,H=2$ model obtained 0.842/0.928 in Table 1. A 3-fold sweep produced the highest point estimates at $d=8,H=1$ (accuracy 0.858, AUC 0.932). We retain $d=8,H=2$ because the robustness experiment preceded the sweep and changing the reported model afterward would constitute post hoc selection. Every wide-and-deep grid configuration exceeded the pure-attention AUC, indicating that the result is not confined to one width or head count.

The main results and ablations above provide the controlled comparisons within this study. Published digital-biomarker methods use different cohorts, tasks, feature sets, and performance measures, so they can serve only as descriptive reference points.

Figure 8 places BioSync’s cognitive-cohort AUC of 0.928 beside five values from the literature reviewed in Section 2. Teh et al. report pooled sensitivity and specificity of approximately 0.80 in a meta-analysis of MCI and pre-frailty digital biomarkers [37]. Qi et al. report mean AUCs of 0.821 across 45 MCI-focused AI models and 0.887 across 21 AD-focused AI models in a review of 431 studies [31].

Li et al. report 0.889 accuracy for late fusion of digital cognitive tests with wearable measures [22], and Xu et al. report 0.918 accuracy for late fusion of language digital biomarkers [42]. BioSync’s synthetic-cohort AUC is numerically higher than these five plotted values. Because the references include AUC, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity from different datasets, the ordering is descriptive rather than inferential.

This comparison does not establish superiority over a published method; it defines reference values for subsequent real-cohort evaluation.

Table 2 compares single-modality biomarkers, early fusion, late fusion as used in published multimodal designs [22, 42], and BioSync on the six criteria from Section 3.4. BioSync is the only design marked as satisfying all six within the scope of the present architectural analysis. This rating does not mean that it wins every classification metric: concatenation has higher cognitive-cohort accuracy and F1-score and higher metabolic-cohort AUC. Concatenation and voting also lack an intrinsic per-subject modality-weight output. The graceful-degradation rating is based specifically on the matched corruption test, in which BioSync leads at five of six cognitive-cohort rates; it does not imply an advantage for every failure pattern or for every metabolic-cohort rate.