↓ Skip to main content

Structural Brain Network: What is the Effect of LiFE Optimization of Whole Brain Tractography?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Structural Brain Network: What is the Effect of LiFE Optimization of Whole Brain Tractography?
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, February 2016
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2016.00012
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shouliang Qi, Stephan Meesters, Klaas Nicolay, Bart M. ter Haar Romeny, Pauly Ossenblok

Abstract

Structural brain networks constructed based on diffusion-weighted MRI (dMRI) have provided a systems perspective to explore the organization of the human brain. Some redundant and nonexistent fibers, however, are inevitably generated in whole brain tractography. We propose to add one critical step while constructing the networks to remove these fibers using the linear fascicle evaluation (LiFE) method, and study the differences between the networks with and without LiFE optimization. For a cohort of nine healthy adults and for 9 out of the 35 subjects from Human Connectome Project, the T 1-weighted images and dMRI data are analyzed. Each brain is parcellated into 90 regions-of-interest, whilst a probabilistic tractography algorithm is applied to generate the original connectome. The elimination of redundant and nonexistent fibers from the original connectome by LiFE creates the optimized connectome, and the random selection of the same number of fibers as the optimized connectome creates the non-optimized connectome. The combination of parcellations and these connectomes leads to the optimized and non-optimized networks, respectively. The optimized networks are constructed with six weighting schemes, and the correlations of different weighting methods are analyzed. The fiber length distributions of the non-optimized and optimized connectomes are compared. The optimized and non-optimized networks are compared with regard to edges, nodes and networks, within a sparsity range of 0.75-0.95. It has been found that relatively more short fibers exist in the optimized connectome. About 24.0% edges of the optimized network are significantly different from those in the non-optimized network at a sparsity of 0.75. About 13.2% of edges are classified as false positives or the possible missing edges. The strength and betweenness centrality of some nodes are significantly different for the non-optimized and optimized networks, but not the node efficiency. The normalized clustering coefficient, the normalized characteristic path length and the small-worldness are higher in the optimized network weighted by the fiber number than in the non-optimized network. These observed differences suggest that LiFE optimization can be a crucial step for the construction of more reasonable and more accurate structural brain networks.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 39 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 29%
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 3 7%
Other 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 7 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 12%
Neuroscience 5 12%
Computer Science 5 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 14 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

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 16 February 2016.
All research outputs
#23,793,801
of 26,484,134 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#1,260
of 1,498 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,969
of 313,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#24
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,484,134 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 1,498 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. 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 313,288 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 29 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.