ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2016
Differential Effects of Brain Disorders on Structural and Functional Connectivity.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of the relationship between magnetic resonance imaging based resting-state and structural networks in the rodent brain.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Pooled it
- Glial interactions in the formation and plasticity of the corpus callosum.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2025Review
- Reorganization of rich clubs in functional brain networks of dementia with Lewy bodies and Alzheimer's disease.NeuroImage. Clinical · 2022Article
- Uncovering Cortical Units of Processing From Multi-Layered Connectomes.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Altered structural connectivity networks in a mouse model of complete and partial dysgenesis of the corpus callosum.NeuroImage · 2020Article
- Abnormal Anatomical Rich-Club Organization and Structural-Functional Coupling in Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer's Disease.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Article
- Making Sense of Connectivity.The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology · 2019Review
- Educational fMRI: From the Lab to the Classroom.Frontiers in psychology · 2019Review
- Alterations in Brain Network Topology and Structural-Functional Connectome Coupling Relate to Cognitive Impairment.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2018Article
- Hub-driven remote synchronization in brain networks.Scientific reports · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Different measures of brain connectivity can be defined based on neuroimaging read-outs, including structural and functional connectivity. Neurological and psychiatric conditions are often associated with abnormal connectivity, but comparing the effects of the disease on different types of connectivity remains a challenge. In this paper, we address the problem of quantifying the relative effects of brain disease on structural and functional connectivity at a group level. Within the framework of a graph representation of connectivity, we introduce a kernel two-sample test as an effective method to assess the difference between the patients and control group. Moreover, we propose a common representation space for structural and functional connectivity networks, and a novel test statistics to quantitatively assess differential effects of the disease on different types of connectivity. We apply this approach to a dataset from BTBR mice, a murine model of Agenesis of the Corpus Callosum (ACC), a congenital disorder characterized by the absence of the main bundle of fibers connecting the two hemispheres. We used normo-callosal mice (B6) as a comparator. The application of the proposed methods to this data-set shows that the two types of connectivity can be successfully used to discriminate between BTBR and B6, meaning that both types of connectivity are affected by ACC. However, our novel test statistics shows that structural connectivity is significantly more affected than functional connectivity, consistent with the idea that functional connectivity has a robust topology that can tolerate substantial alterations in its structural connectivity substrate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.