ArticleFrontiers in network physiology2024
Constructing representative group networks from tractography: lessons from a dynamical approach.
Article in Frontiers in network physiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Human group connectome analysis relies on combining individual connectome data to construct a single representative network which can be used to describe brain organisation and identify differences between subject groups. Existing methods adopt different strategies to select the network structural features to be retained or optimised at group level. In the absence of ground truth, however, it is unclear which structural features are the most suitable and how to evaluate the consequences on the group network of applying any given strategy. In this investigation, we consider the impact of defining a connectome as representative if it can recapitulate not just the structure of the individual networks in the cohort tested but also their dynamical behaviour, which we measured using a model of coupled oscillators. We applied the widely used approach of consensus thresholding to a dataset of individual structural connectomes from a healthy adult cohort to construct group networks for a range of thresholds and then identified the most dynamically representative group connectome as that having the least deviation from the individual connectomes given a dynamical measure of the system. We found that our dynamically representative network recaptured aspects of structure for which it did not specifically optimise, with no significant difference to other group connectomes constructed via methods which did optimise for those metrics. Additionally, these other group connectomes were either as dynamically representative as our chosen network or less so. While we suggest that dynamics should be at least one of the criteria for representativeness, given that the brain has evolved under the pressure of carrying out specific functions, our results suggest that the question persists as to which of these criteria are valid and testable.
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.