Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30115955›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2018

A comparison between scalp- and source-reconstructed EEG networks.

Margherita Lai, Matteo Demuru, Arjan Hillebrand, Matteo Fraschini

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

4 authors.

Margherita LaiDepartment of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of Cagliari, Piazza D'armi, Cagliari, I-09123, Italy.
Matteo DemuruDepartment of Clinical Neurophysiology and MEG Center, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Arjan HillebrandDepartment of Clinical Neurophysiology and MEG Center, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Matteo FraschiniDepartment of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of Cagliari, Piazza D'armi, Cagliari, I-09123, Italy. fraschin@unica.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

EEG can be used to characterise functional networks using a variety of connectivity (FC) metrics. Unlike EEG source reconstruction, scalp analysis does not allow to make inferences about interacting regions, yet this latter approach has not been abandoned. Although the two approaches use different assumptions, conclusions drawn regarding the topology of the underlying networks should, ideally, not depend on the approach. The aim of the present work was to find an answer to the following questions: does scalp analysis provide a correct estimate of the network topology? how big are the distortions when using various pipelines in different experimental conditions? EEG recordings were analysed with amplitude- and phase-based metrics, founding a strong correlation for the global connectivity between scalp- and source-level. In contrast, network topology was only weakly correlated. The strongest correlations were obtained for MST leaf fraction, but only for FC metrics that limit the effects of volume conduction/signal leakage. These findings suggest that these effects alter the estimated EEG network organization, limiting the interpretation of results of scalp analysis. Finally, this study also suggests that the use of metrics that address the problem of zero lag correlations may give more reliable estimates of the underlying network topology.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsElectroencephalographyScalpSignal Processing, Computer-AssistedBrain MappingHumansRest

Identifiers

PMID30115955
PMCPMC6095906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.