Literature DB >> 23153969

Evaluation and calibration of functional network modeling methods based on known anatomical connections.

Debra Ann Dawson1, Kuwook Cha, Lindsay B Lewis, Janine D Mendola, Amir Shmuel.   

Abstract

Recent studies have identified large scale brain networks based on the spatio-temporal structure of spontaneous fluctuations in resting-state fMRI data. It is expected that functional connectivity based on resting-state data is reflective of - but not identical to - the underlying anatomical connectivity. However, which functional connectivity analysis methods reliably predict the network structure remains unclear. Here we tested and compared network connectivity analysis methods by applying them to fMRI resting-state time-series obtained from the human visual cortex. The methods evaluated here are those previously tested against simulated data in Smith et al. (Neuroimage, 2011). To this end, we defined regions within retinotopic visual areas V1, V2, and V3 according to their eccentricity in the visual field, delineating central, intermediate, and peripheral eccentricity regions of interest (ROIs). These ROIs served as nodes in the models we study. We based our evaluation on the "ground-truth", thoroughly studied retinotopically-organized anatomical connectivity in the monkey visual cortex. For each evaluated method, we computed the fractional rate of detecting connections known to exist ("c-sensitivity"), while using a threshold of the 95th percentile of the distribution of interaction magnitudes of those connections not expected to exist. Under optimal conditions - including session duration of 68min, a relatively small network consisting of 9 nodes and artifact-free regression of the global effect - each of the top methods predicted the expected connections with 67-85% c-sensitivity. Correlation methods, including Correlation (Corr; 85%), Regularized Inverse Covariance (ICOV; 84%) and Partial Correlation (PCorr; 81%) performed best, followed by Patel's Kappa (80%), Bayesian Network method PC (BayesNet; 77%), General Synchronization measures (67-77%), and Coherence (CohB; 74%). With decreased session duration, these top methods saw decreases in c-sensitivities, achieving 59-76% for 17min sessions. With a short resting-state fMRI scan of 8.5min, none of the methods predicted the real network well, with Corr (65%) performing best. With increased complexity of the network from 9 to 36 nodes, multivariate methods including PCorr and BayesNet saw a decrease in performance. Artifact-free regression of the global effect increased the c-sensitivity of the top-performing methods. In an overall evaluation across all tests we performed, correlation methods (Corr, ICOV, and PCorr), Patel's Kappa, and BayesNet method PC set themselves somewhat above all other methods. We propose that data-based calibration based on known anatomical connections be integrated into future network studies, in order to maximize sensitivity and reduce false positives.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23153969     DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.11.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroimage        ISSN: 1053-8119            Impact factor:   6.556


  18 in total

Review 1.  Bayesian networks in neuroscience: a survey.

Authors:  Concha Bielza; Pedro Larrañaga
Journal:  Front Comput Neurosci       Date:  2014-10-16       Impact factor: 2.380

2.  Partial Correlation-Based Retinotopically Organized Resting-State Functional Connectivity Within and Between Areas of the Visual Cortex Reflects More Than Cortical Distance.

Authors:  Debra Ann Dawson; Jack Lam; Lindsay B Lewis; Felix Carbonell; Janine D Mendola; Amir Shmuel
Journal:  Brain Connect       Date:  2016-02

3.  Network diffusion accurately models the relationship between structural and functional brain connectivity networks.

Authors:  Farras Abdelnour; Henning U Voss; Ashish Raj
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2013-12-30       Impact factor: 6.556

4.  Subject-specific functional parcellation via prior based eigenanatomy.

Authors:  Paramveer S Dhillon; David A Wolk; Sandhitsu R Das; Lyle H Ungar; James C Gee; Brian B Avants
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2014-05-20       Impact factor: 6.556

5.  In vivo visuotopic brain mapping with manganese-enhanced MRI and resting-state functional connectivity MRI.

Authors:  Kevin C Chan; Shu-Juan Fan; Russell W Chan; Joe S Cheng; Iris Y Zhou; Ed X Wu
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2014-01-04       Impact factor: 6.556

6.  Multiphasic modification of intrinsic functional connectivity of the rat brain during increasing levels of propofol.

Authors:  Xiping Liu; Siveshigan Pillay; Rupeng Li; Jeannette A Vizuete; Kimberly R Pechman; Kathleen M Schmainda; Anthony G Hudetz
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2013-07-10       Impact factor: 6.556

Review 7.  Cognitive network neuroscience.

Authors:  John D Medaglia; Mary-Ellen Lynall; Danielle S Bassett
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2015-03-24       Impact factor: 3.225

8.  Improved estimation of subject-level functional connectivity using full and partial correlation with empirical Bayes shrinkage.

Authors:  Amanda F Mejia; Mary Beth Nebel; Anita D Barber; Ann S Choe; James J Pekar; Brian S Caffo; Martin A Lindquist
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2018-02-14       Impact factor: 6.556

Review 9.  Neural and metabolic basis of dynamic resting state fMRI.

Authors:  Garth J Thompson
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2017-09-09       Impact factor: 6.556

Review 10.  On the nature and use of models in network neuroscience.

Authors:  Danielle S Bassett; Perry Zurn; Joshua I Gold
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 34.870

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.