Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29468769›Full record

ArticleHuman brain mapping2018

Minimum spanning tree analysis of the human connectome.

Edwin van Dellen, Iris E Sommer, Marc M Bohlken, Prejaas Tewarie, Laurijn Draaisma, Andrew Zalesky, Maria Di Biase, Jesse A Brown, Linda Douw, Willem M Otte and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human brain mapping, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. [Effect of electroconvulsive therapy on brain functional network in major depressive disorder].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Edwin van DellenDepartment of Psychiatry, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1828-5959
Iris E SommerDepartment of Neuroscience, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Marc M BohlkenDepartment of Psychiatry, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Prejaas TewarieDepartment of Clinical Neurophysiology and MEG Center, Neuroscience Campus Amsterdam, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Laurijn DraaismaDepartment of Psychiatry, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Andrew ZaleskyMelbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Maria Di BiaseMelbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Jesse A BrownDepartment of Neurology, Memory and Aging Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Linda DouwDepartment of Anatomy and Neurosciences, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Willem M OtteBiomedical MR Imaging and Spectroscopy, Image Sciences Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
René C W MandlDepartment of Psychiatry, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1907-0159
Cornelis J StamDepartment of Clinical Neurophysiology and MEG Center, Neuroscience Campus Amsterdam, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the challenges of brain network analysis is to directly compare network organization between subjects, irrespective of the number or strength of connections. In this study, we used minimum spanning tree (MST; a unique, acyclic subnetwork with a fixed number of connections) analysis to characterize the human brain network to create an empirical reference network. Such a reference network could be used as a null model of connections that form the backbone structure of the human brain. We analyzed the MST in three diffusion-weighted imaging datasets of healthy adults. The MST of the group mean connectivity matrix was used as the empirical null-model. The MST of individual subjects matched this reference MST for a mean 58%-88% of connections, depending on the analysis pipeline. Hub nodes in the MST matched with previously reported locations of hub regions, including the so-called rich club nodes (a subset of high-degree, highly interconnected nodes). Although most brain network studies have focused primarily on cortical connections, cortical-subcortical connections were consistently present in the MST across subjects. Brain network efficiency was higher when these connections were included in the analysis, suggesting that these tracts may be utilized as the major neural communication routes. Finally, we confirmed that MST characteristics index the effects of brain aging. We conclude that the MST provides an elegant and straightforward approach to analyze structural brain networks, and to test network topological features of individual subjects in comparison to empirical null models.

Indexed as

ConnectomeAdultAgedBrainHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMiddle AgedNerve NetNeural PathwaysYoung Adultbrain networksdiffusion tensor imaginghubsminimum spanning treereference network

Identifiers

PMID29468769
PMCPMC5969238

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.