Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36006366›Full record

ReviewBrain connectivity2023

Brain Network Analysis: A Review on Multivariate Analytical Methods.

Mohsen Bahrami, Paul J Laurienti, Heather M Shappell, Sean L Simpson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Brain connectivity, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Mohsen BahramiLaboratory for Complex Brain Networks, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8342-6194
Paul J LaurientiLaboratory for Complex Brain Networks, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.
Heather M ShappellLaboratory for Complex Brain Networks, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.
Sean L SimpsonLaboratory for Complex Brain Networks, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.

Funding

The Effect of Pesticide Exposure on Cognitive and Brain Development in Latino Children: PACE5 Administrative Supplement 2R01ES008739 · NIEHS · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI ARCURY, THOMAS A., LAURIENTI, PAUL · 2000 to 2022
$11.1M
Analytical Tools for Complex Brain Networks: Fusing Novel Statistical Methods and Network Science to Understand Brain FunctionR01EB024559 · NIBIB · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI SIMPSON, SEAN L · 2018 to 2021
$1.5M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB024559NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES008739
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the explosive growth of neuroimaging studies aimed at analyzing the brain as a complex system, critical methodological gaps remain to be addressed. Most tools currently used for analyzing network data of the brain are univariate in nature and are based on assumptions borne out of previous techniques not directly related to the big and complex data of the brain. Although graph-based methods have shown great promise, the development of principled multivariate models to address inherent limitations of graph-based methods, such as their dependence on network size and degree distributions, and to allow assessing the effects of multiple phenotypes on the brain and simulating brain networks has largely lagged behind. Although some studies have been made in developing multivariate frameworks to fill this gap, in the absence of a "gold-standard" method or guidelines, choosing the most appropriate method for each study can be another critical challenge for investigators in this multidisciplinary field. Here, we briefly introduce important multivariate methods for brain network analyses in two main categories: data-driven and model-based methods. We discuss whether/how such methods are suited for examining connectivity (edge-level), topology (system-level), or both. This review will aid in choosing an appropriate multivariate method with respect to variables such as network type, number of subjects and brain regions included, and the interest in connectivity, topology, or both. This review is aimed to be accessible to investigators from different backgrounds, with a focus on applications in brain network studies, though the methods may be applicable in other areas too. Impact statement As the U.S. National Institute of Health notes, the rich biomedical data can greatly improve our knowledge of human health if new analytical tools are developed, and their applications are broadly disseminated. A major challenge in analyzing the brain as a complex system is about developing parsimonious multivariate methods, and particularly choosing the most appropriate one among the existing methods with respect to the study variables in this multidisciplinary field. This study provides a review on the most important multivariate methods to aid in helping the most appropriate ones with respect to the desired variables for each study.

Indexed as

BrainMagnetic Resonance ImagingHumansNerve NetNeuroimagingbrain networksconnectivitydata-drivenmodel-basedmultivariate

Identifiers

PMID36006366
PMCPMC10024592

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.