Topological Filtering of Dynamic Functional Brain Networks Unfolds Informative Chronnectomics: A Novel Data-Driven Thresholding Scheme Based on Orthogonal Minimal Spanning Trees (OMSTs)
Stavros I. Dimitriadis, Christos Salis, Ioannis Tarnanas, David E. Linden
Abstract
The human brain is a large-scale system of functionally connected brain regions. This system can be modeled as a network, or graph, by dividing the brain into a set of regions, or "nodes," and quantifying the strength of the connections between nodes, or "edges," as the temporal correlation in their patterns of activity. Network analysis, a part of graph theory, provides a set of summary statistics that can be used to describe complex brain networks in a meaningful way. The large-scale organization of the brain has features of complex networks that can be quantified using network measures from graph theory. The adaptation of both bivariate (mutual information) and multivariate (Granger causality) connectivity estimators to quantify the synchronization between multichannel recordings yields a fully connected, weighted, (a)symmetric functional connectivity graph (FCG), representing the associations among all brain areas. The aforementioned procedure leads to an extremely dense network of tens up to a few hundreds of weights. Therefore, this FCG must be filtered out so that the "true" connectivity pattern can emerge. Here, we compared a large number of well-known topological thresholding techniques with the novel proposed data-driven scheme based on orthogonal minimal spanning trees (OMSTs). OMSTs filter brain connectivity networks based on the optimization between the global efficiency of the network and the cost preserving its wiring. We demonstrated the proposed method in a large EEG database (N = 101 subjects) with eyes-open (EO) and eyes-closed (EC) tasks by adopting a time-varying approach with the main goal to extract features that can totally distinguish each subject from the rest of the set. Additionally, the reliability of the proposed scheme was estimated in a second case study of fMRI resting-state activity with multiple scans. Our results demonstrated clearly that the proposed thresholding scheme outperformed a large list of thresholding schemes based on the recognition accuracy of each subject compared to the rest of the cohort (EEG). Additionally, the reliability of the network metrics based on the fMRI static networks was improved based on the proposed topological filtering scheme. Overall, the proposed algorithm could be used across neuroimaging and multimodal studies as a common computationally efficient standardized tool for a great number of neuroscientists and physicists working on numerous of projects.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 May 2017.
All research outputs
#20,418,183
of 22,968,808 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
#681
of 752 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,469
of 309,828 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
#17
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,968,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 752 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,828 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
