2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.03.021
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A two-part mixed-effects modeling framework for analyzing whole-brain network data

Abstract: Whole-brain network analyses remain the vanguard in neuroimaging research, coming to prominence within the last decade. Network science approaches have facilitated these analyses and allowed examining the brain as an integrated system. However, statistical methods for modeling and comparing groups of networks have lagged behind. Fusing multivariate statistical approaches with network science presents the best path to develop these methods. Toward this end, we propose a two-part mixed-effects modeling framework… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
58
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(65 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
0
58
1
Order By: Relevance
“…local clustering and global efficiency) over all age categories, in contrast with previous literature showing alterations in both structural (Dennis et al, 2013;Gong et al, 2009;Hagmann et al, 2010;Montembeault et al, 2012;Otte et al, 2015;Wu et al, 2012;Zhu et al, 2012) and functional brain networks across life-span (Achard and Bullmore, 2007;Betzel et al, 2014;Meier et al, 2012;Meunier et al, 2009;Nathan Spreng and Schacter, 2012;Simpson and Laurienti, 2015;Smit et al, 2016;Wang et al, 2012). Furthermore, our findings are also in contrast with significant differences found in a previous exponential random graph modeling study in functional networks , and a recently developed similar approach (also discussed below) which revealed differences in functional networks across the lifespan, such as older adults having stronger connections between highly clustered nodes, or less assortativity in visual and multisensory regions (Simpson and Laurienti, 2015). We speculate that functional networks might be more prone to changes across the lifespan, while structural networks remain quite stable, when taking into account density differences and mutual dependencies of network properties.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 82%
“…local clustering and global efficiency) over all age categories, in contrast with previous literature showing alterations in both structural (Dennis et al, 2013;Gong et al, 2009;Hagmann et al, 2010;Montembeault et al, 2012;Otte et al, 2015;Wu et al, 2012;Zhu et al, 2012) and functional brain networks across life-span (Achard and Bullmore, 2007;Betzel et al, 2014;Meier et al, 2012;Meunier et al, 2009;Nathan Spreng and Schacter, 2012;Simpson and Laurienti, 2015;Smit et al, 2016;Wang et al, 2012). Furthermore, our findings are also in contrast with significant differences found in a previous exponential random graph modeling study in functional networks , and a recently developed similar approach (also discussed below) which revealed differences in functional networks across the lifespan, such as older adults having stronger connections between highly clustered nodes, or less assortativity in visual and multisensory regions (Simpson and Laurienti, 2015). We speculate that functional networks might be more prone to changes across the lifespan, while structural networks remain quite stable, when taking into account density differences and mutual dependencies of network properties.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 82%
“…WFU_MMNET models the connectivity patterns using a two-part mixed-effects modeling framework developed by Simpson and Laurienti (Simpson and Laurienti 2015). The relationship between both the probability (presence/absence) and strength of a connection, as the outcome (dependent) variables, and different sets of covariates including dyadic or overall network features, covariates of interest and demographics, as independent variables, is quantified through this framework.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Simpson and Laurienti (Simpson and Laurienti 2015) developed a multivariate mixed effects modeling framework in response to such needs. This framework allows comparing whole-brain functional connectivity patterns between groups, quantifying the relationship between covariates and connectivity patterns while reducing spurious correlations, predicting phenotype from network structure, and simulating brain networks.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We used a two-part, mixed-effects modeling framework [40] to statistically compare the global and local network properties between Latino immigrant workers employed on farms to those in working in other industries with low likelihood of pesticide exposure. The modeling framework allowed comparing network properties between the two groups through the inclusion of interaction covariates.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This study used brain network analysis of rs-fMRI data and a mixed-effects modeling framework [40] to compare brain network connectivity patterns between Latino immigrant workers engaged in farm work to those not engaged in farm work. The network analysis was used to characterize global as well as local brain connectivity patterns.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%