Literature DB >> 31927129

The effect of network thresholding and weighting on structural brain networks in the UK Biobank.

Colin R Buchanan1, Mark E Bastin2, Stuart J Ritchie3, David C Liewald4, James W Madole5, Elliot M Tucker-Drob5, Ian J Deary4, Simon R Cox6.   

Abstract

Whole-brain structural networks can be constructed using diffusion MRI and probabilistic tractography. However, measurement noise and the probabilistic nature of the tracking procedure result in an unknown proportion of spurious white matter connections. Faithful disentanglement of spurious and genuine connections is hindered by a lack of comprehensive anatomical information at the network-level. Therefore, network thresholding methods are widely used to remove ostensibly false connections, but it is not yet clear how different thresholding strategies affect basic network properties and their associations with meaningful demographic variables, such as age. In a sample of 3153 generally healthy volunteers from the UK Biobank Imaging Study (aged 44-77 years), we constructed whole-brain structural networks and applied two principled network thresholding approaches (consistency and proportional thresholding). These were applied over a broad range of threshold levels across six alternative network weightings (streamline count, fractional anisotropy, mean diffusivity and three novel weightings from neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging) and for four common network measures (mean edge weight, characteristic path length, network efficiency and network clustering coefficient). We compared network measures against age associations and found that: 1) measures derived from unthresholded matrices yielded the weakest age-associations (0.033 ​≤ ​|β| ​≤ ​0.409); and 2) the most commonly-used level of proportional-thresholding from the literature (retaining 68.7% of all possible connections) yielded significantly weaker age-associations (0.070 ​≤ ​|β| ​≤ ​0.406) than the consistency-based approach which retained only 30% of connections (0.140 ​≤ ​|β| ​≤ ​0.409). However, we determined that the stringency of the threshold was a stronger determinant of the network-age association than the choice of threshold method and the two thresholding approaches identified a highly overlapping set of connections (ICC ​= ​0.84), when matched at 70% network sparsity. Generally, more stringent thresholding resulted in more age-sensitive network measures in five of the six network weightings, except at the highest levels of sparsity (>90%), where crucial connections were then removed. At two commonly-used threshold levels, the age-associations of the connections that were discarded (mean β ​≤ ​|0.068|) were significantly smaller in magnitude than the corresponding age-associations of the connections that were retained (mean β ​≤ ​|0.219|, p ​< ​0.001, uncorrected). Given histological evidence of widespread degeneration of structural brain connectivity with increasing age, these results indicate that stringent thresholding methods may be most accurate in identifying true white matter connections.
Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aging; Brain network; Connectome; Diffusion MRI; Thresholding

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31927129      PMCID: PMC7085460          DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116443

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


  60 in total

1.  Characterization and propagation of uncertainty in diffusion-weighted MR imaging.

Authors:  T E J Behrens; M W Woolrich; M Jenkinson; H Johansen-Berg; R G Nunes; S Clare; P M Matthews; J M Brady; S M Smith
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 4.668

2.  Structural connectivity differences in motor network between tremor-dominant and nontremor Parkinson's disease.

Authors:  Gaetano Barbagallo; Maria Eugenia Caligiuri; Gennarina Arabia; Andrea Cherubini; Angela Lupo; Rita Nisticò; Maria Salsone; Fabiana Novellino; Maurizio Morelli; Giuseppe Lucio Cascini; Domenico Galea; Aldo Quattrone
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2017-06-20       Impact factor: 5.038

3.  Test-retest reliability of structural brain networks from diffusion MRI.

Authors:  Colin R Buchanan; Cyril R Pernet; Krzysztof J Gorgolewski; Amos J Storkey; Mark E Bastin
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2013-10-02       Impact factor: 6.556

Review 4.  The influence of construction methodology on structural brain network measures: A review.

Authors:  Shouliang Qi; Stephan Meesters; Klaas Nicolay; Bart M Ter Haar Romeny; Pauly Ossenblok
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2015-06-28       Impact factor: 2.390

5.  Principles of ipsilateral and contralateral cortico-cortical connectivity in the mouse.

Authors:  Alexandros Goulas; Harry B M Uylings; Claus C Hilgetag
Journal:  Brain Struct Funct       Date:  2016-08-06       Impact factor: 3.270

6.  Network over-connectivity differentiates autism spectrum disorder from other developmental disorders in toddlers: A diffusion MRI study.

Authors:  E Conti; J Mitra; S Calderoni; K Pannek; K K Shen; A Pagnozzi; S Rose; S Mazzotti; D Scelfo; M Tosetti; F Muratori; G Cioni; A Guzzetta
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2017-01-17       Impact factor: 5.038

7.  Intrahemispheric and interhemispheric structural network abnormalities in PLS and ALS.

Authors:  Federica Agosta; Sebastiano Galantucci; Nilo Riva; Adriano Chiò; Stefano Messina; Sandro Iannaccone; Andrea Calvo; Vincenzo Silani; Massimiliano Copetti; Andrea Falini; Giancarlo Comi; Massimo Filippi
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2013-04-30       Impact factor: 5.038

8.  Polygenic risk score for schizophrenia and structural brain connectivity in older age: A longitudinal connectome and tractography study.

Authors:  C Alloza; S R Cox; M Blesa Cábez; P Redmond; H C Whalley; S J Ritchie; S Muñoz Maniega; M Del C Valdés Hernández; E M Tucker-Drob; S M Lawrie; J M Wardlaw; I J Deary; M E Bastin
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2018-09-01       Impact factor: 6.556

9.  Distance-dependent consensus thresholds for generating group-representative structural brain networks.

Authors:  Richard F Betzel; Alessandra Griffa; Patric Hagmann; Bratislav Mišić
Journal:  Netw Neurosci       Date:  2019-03-01

10.  Image processing and Quality Control for the first 10,000 brain imaging datasets from UK Biobank.

Authors:  Fidel Alfaro-Almagro; Mark Jenkinson; Neal K Bangerter; Jesper L R Andersson; Ludovica Griffanti; Gwenaëlle Douaud; Stamatios N Sotiropoulos; Saad Jbabdi; Moises Hernandez-Fernandez; Emmanuel Vallee; Diego Vidaurre; Matthew Webster; Paul McCarthy; Christopher Rorden; Alessandro Daducci; Daniel C Alexander; Hui Zhang; Iulius Dragonu; Paul M Matthews; Karla L Miller; Stephen M Smith
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2017-10-24       Impact factor: 6.556

View more
  22 in total

1.  Functional and structural brain connectivity in congenital deafness.

Authors:  Karolyne Dell Ducas; Antonio Carlos da S Senra Filho; Pedro Henrique Rodrigues Silva; Kaio Felippe Secchinato; Renata Ferranti Leoni; Antonio Carlos Santos
Journal:  Brain Struct Funct       Date:  2021-03-19       Impact factor: 3.270

2.  Oocyte Biobanks: Old Assumptions and New Challenges.

Authors:  Pamela Tozzo
Journal:  BioTech (Basel)       Date:  2021-02-18

Review 3.  Quantitative mapping of the brain's structural connectivity using diffusion MRI tractography: A review.

Authors:  Fan Zhang; Alessandro Daducci; Yong He; Simona Schiavi; Caio Seguin; Robert E Smith; Chun-Hung Yeh; Tengda Zhao; Lauren J O'Donnell
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2022-01-01       Impact factor: 7.400

4.  Aging-Sensitive Networks Within the Human Structural Connectome Are Implicated in Late-Life Cognitive Declines.

Authors:  James W Madole; Stuart J Ritchie; Simon R Cox; Colin R Buchanan; Maria Valdés Hernández; Susana Muñoz Maniega; Joanna M Wardlaw; Mathew A Harris; Mark E Bastin; Ian J Deary; Elliot M Tucker-Drob
Journal:  Biol Psychiatry       Date:  2020-06-15       Impact factor: 13.382

5.  Hierarchical Complexity of the Macro-Scale Neonatal Brain.

Authors:  Manuel Blesa; Paola Galdi; Simon R Cox; Gemma Sullivan; David Q Stoye; Gillian J Lamb; Alan J Quigley; Michael J Thrippleton; Javier Escudero; Mark E Bastin; Keith M Smith; James P Boardman
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2021-03-05       Impact factor: 5.357

6.  Identifying brain regions supporting amygdalar functionality: Application of a novel graph theory technique.

Authors:  Melanie A Matyi; Sebastian M Cioaba; Marie T Banich; Jeffrey M Spielberg
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2021-09-25       Impact factor: 6.556

7.  Comparison of structural MRI brain measures between 1.5 and 3 T: Data from the Lothian Birth Cohort 1936.

Authors:  Colin R Buchanan; Susana Muñoz Maniega; Maria C Valdés Hernández; Lucia Ballerini; Gayle Barclay; Adele M Taylor; Tom C Russ; Elliot M Tucker-Drob; Joanna M Wardlaw; Ian J Deary; Mark E Bastin; Simon R Cox
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2021-05-19       Impact factor: 5.399

8.  The large-scale structural connectome of task-specific focal dystonia.

Authors:  Sandra Hanekamp; Kristina Simonyan
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2020-04-20       Impact factor: 5.038

9.  Predicting MEG resting-state functional connectivity from microstructural information.

Authors:  Eirini Messaritaki; Sonya Foley; Simona Schiavi; Lorenzo Magazzini; Bethany Routley; Derek K Jones; Krish D Singh
Journal:  Netw Neurosci       Date:  2021-06-03

10.  Sensory-motor network topology in multiple sclerosis: Structural connectivity analysis accounting for intrinsic density discrepancy.

Authors:  Simona Schiavi; Maria Petracca; Matteo Battocchio; Mohamed M El Mendili; Swetha Paduri; Lazar Fleysher; Matilde Inglese; Alessandro Daducci
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2020-05-15       Impact factor: 5.038

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.