A difference degree test for comparing brain networks

Abstract

Recently, there has been a proliferation of methods investigating functional connectivity as a biomarker for mental disorders. Typical approaches include massive univariate testing at each edge or comparisons of network metrics to identify differing topological features. Limitations of these methods include low statistical power due to the large number of comparisons and difficulty attributing overall differences in networks to local variation. We propose a method to capture the difference degree, which is the number of edges incident to each region in the difference network. Our difference degree test (DDT) is a two‐step procedure for identifying brain regions incident to a significant number of differentially weighted edges (DWEs). First, we select a data‐adaptive threshold which identifies the DWEs followed by a statistical test for the number of DWEs incident to each brain region. We achieve this by generating an appropriate set of null networks which are matched on the first and second moments of the observed difference network using the Hirschberger–Qi–Steuer algorithm. This formulation permits separation of the network's true topology from the nuisance topology induced by the correlation measure that alters interregional connectivity in ways unrelated to brain function. In simulations, the proposed approach outperforms competing methods in detecting differentially connected regions of interest. Application of DDT to a major depressive disorder dataset leads to the identification of brain regions in the default mode network commonly implicated in this ruminative disorder.

Developing a model for determining the criticality level in gas industries using effective factors and balanced scorecards

“…That is, if the distribution of the community is unknown, then the binomial test is used instead of the one-sample t test (Higgins et al 2018).…”

Bayesian Joint Modeling of Multiple Brain Functional Networks

“…Moreover, a major difficulty under penalized approaches arises when comparing multiple networks, since the estimated network differences may be artifacts resulting from estimation errors under point estimates (Kim, Pan, and Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative 2015). Penalized methods for comparing networks rely on permutation tests that are computationally burdensome and hence not scalable, or they construct null distributions to conduct hypothesis testing (Higgins et al 2019) that may be restrictive when the associated assumptions are not satisfied. Hence, penalized approaches may not be adequate for inferring network differences between multiple experimental conditions, which is a central objective in this article.…”

Functional interactions in patients with hemianopia: A graph theory-based connectivity study of resting fMRI signal

“…Among the different methods that can be applied to study RS functional connectivity, we decided to use a graph theory-based connectivity approach as it provides a way to assess the network topology by reducing the brain network to a simplified set of nodes and edges [44][45][46][47]. It enables the extraction and comparison of summary measures of brain topology and efficiency in healthy and in clinical populations [48]. For all these reasons, this approach has been widely used to assess the intrinsic network organization in psychiatric and neurological syndromes [37,49,50].…”