4.7 Article

Whole-brain anatomical networks: Does the choice of nodes matter?

Journal

NEUROIMAGE
Volume 50, Issue 3, Pages 970-983

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.12.027

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institute of Biomedical Imaging Bioengineering
  2. National Institute of Mental Health
  3. Australian Research Council [DP0986320]
  4. National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC) [454797]
  5. Swiss National Science Foundation [PBLAB3-119622, PASMP3-129357/1]
  6. NHMRC Clinical Career Development Award [509345]
  7. NHMRC Senior Principal Research Fellowship [628386]
  8. NHMRC Program [566529]
  9. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [PASMP3_129357] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)
  10. Australian Research Council [DP0986320] Funding Source: Australian Research Council
  11. Medical Research Council [G0001354, G0001354B] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Whole-brain anatomical connectivity in living humans can be modeled as a network with diffusion-MRI and tractography. Network nodes are associated with distinct grey-matter regions, while white-matter fiber bundles serve as interconnecting network links. However, the lack of a gold standard for regional parcellation in brain MRI makes the definition of nodes arbitrary, meaning that network nodes are defined using templates employing either random or anatomical parcellation criteria. Consequently, the number of nodes included in networks studied by different authors has varied considerably, from less than 100 up to more than 10(4). Here, we systematically and quantitatively assess the behavior, structure and topological attributes of whole-brain anatomical networks over a wide range of nodal scales, a variety of grey-matter parcellations as well as different diffusion-MRI acquisition protocols. We show that simple binary decisions about network Organization, such as whether small-worldness or scale-freeness is evident, are unaffected by spatial scale, and that the estimates of various organizational parameters (e.g. small-worldness, clustering, path length, and efficiency) are consistent across different parcellation scales at the same resolution (i.e. the same number of nodes). However, these parameters vary considerably as a function of spatial scale; for example small-worldness exhibited a difference of 95% between the widely-used automated anatomical labeling (AAL) template (similar to 100 nodes) and a 4000-node random parcellation (sigma(AAL)=1.9 vs. sigma(4000) = 53.6 +/- 2.2). These findings indicate that any comparison of network parameters across studies must be made with reference to the spatial scale of the nodal parcellation. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available