Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30323734›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2018

On the Extraction and Analysis of Graphs From Resting-State fMRI to Support a Correct and Robust Diagnostic Tool for Alzheimer's Disease.

Claudia Bachmann, Heidi I L Jacobs, PierGianLuca Porta Mana, Kim Dillen, Nils Richter, Boris von Reutern, Julian Dronse, Oezguer A Onur, Karl-Josef Langen, Gereon R Fink and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Topological reorganization of functional hubs in patients with Parkinson's disease with freezing of gait.Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging
    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 at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Claudia BachmannInstitute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-6), Institute for Advanced Simulation (IAS-6), JARA BRAIN Institute I, Jülich Research Centre, Jülich, Germany.
Heidi I L JacobsFaculty of Health, Medicine and Life Science, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Alzheimer Centre Limburg, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.
PierGianLuca Porta ManaKavli Institute for Systems Neuroscience, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Kim DillenCognitive Neuroscience, Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-3), Jülich Research Centre, Jülich, Germany.
Nils RichterCognitive Neuroscience, Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-3), Jülich Research Centre, Jülich, Germany.
Boris von ReuternCognitive Neuroscience, Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-3), Jülich Research Centre, Jülich, Germany.
Julian DronseCognitive Neuroscience, Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-3), Jülich Research Centre, Jülich, Germany.
Oezguer A OnurCognitive Neuroscience, Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-3), Jülich Research Centre, Jülich, Germany.
Karl-Josef LangenCognitive Neuroscience, Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-4), Jülich Research Centre, Jülich, Germany.
Gereon R FinkCognitive Neuroscience, Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-3), Jülich Research Centre, Jülich, Germany.
Juraj KukoljaCognitive Neuroscience, Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-3), Jülich Research Centre, Jülich, Germany.
Abigail MorrisonInstitute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-6), Institute for Advanced Simulation (IAS-6), JARA BRAIN Institute I, Jülich Research Centre, Jülich, Germany.
Forschungszentrum Jülich · DEUniversity Hospital Cologne · DEHelios Universitätsklinikum Wuppertal · DEMassachusetts General Hospital · USNorwegian University of Science and Technology · NORuhr University Bochum · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD), especially in the early stage, is still not very reliable and the development of new diagnosis tools is desirable. A diagnosis based on functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is a suitable candidate, since fMRI is non-invasive, readily available, and indirectly measures synaptic dysfunction, which can be observed even at the earliest stages of AD. However, the results of previous attempts to analyze graph properties of resting state fMRI data are contradictory, presumably caused by methodological differences in graph construction. This comprises two steps: clustering the voxels of the functional image to define the nodes of the graph, and calculating the graph's edge weights based on a functional connectivity measure of the average cluster activities. A variety of methods are available for each step, but the robustness of results to method choice, and the suitability of the methods to support a diagnostic tool, are largely unknown. To address this issue, we employ a range of commonly and rarely used clustering and edge definition methods and analyze their graph theoretic measures (graph weight, shortest path length, clustering coefficient, and weighted degree distribution and modularity) on a small data set of 26 healthy controls, 16 subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and 14 with Alzheimer's disease. We examine the results with respect to statistical significance of the mean difference in graph properties, the sensitivity of the results to model and parameter choices, and relative diagnostic power based on both a statistical model and support vector machines. We find that different combinations of graph construction techniques yield contradicting, but statistically significant, relations of graph properties between health conditions, explaining the discrepancy across previous studies, but casting doubt on such analyses as a method to gain insight into disease effects. The production of significant differences in mean graph properties turns out not to be a good predictor of future diagnostic capacity. Highest predictive power, expressed by largest negative surprise values, are achieved for both atlas-driven and data-driven clustering (Ward clustering), as long as graphs are small and clusters large, in combination with edge definitions based on correlations and mutual information transfer.

Indexed as

Alzheimer's diseasediagnosisgraph theoryMCImodel by sufficiencynegative surpriseresting-state fMRI

Identifiers

PMID30323734
PMCPMC6172342
OpenAlexW2892694839

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.