Spatial Stability of Functional Networks: A Measure to Assess the Robustness of Graph-Theoretical Metrics to Spatial Errors Related to Brain Parcellation

Abstract

There is growing interest in studying human brain connectivity and in modelling the brain functional structure as a network. Brain network creation requires parcellation of the cerebral cortex to define nodes. Parcellation might be affected by possible errors due to inter- and intra-subject variability as a consequence of brain structural and physiological characteristics and shape variations related to ageing and diseases, acquisition noise, and misregistration. These errors could induce a knock-on effect on network measure variability. The aim of this study was to investigate spatial stability, a measure of functional connectivity variations induced by parcellation errors. We simulated parcellation variability with random small spatial changes and evaluated its effects on twenty-seven graph-theoretical measures. The study included subjects from three public online datasets. Two brain parcellations were performed using FreeSurfer with geometric atlases. Starting from these, 100 new parcellations were created by increasing the area of 30% of parcels, reducing the area of neighbour parcels, with a rearrangement of vertices. fMRI data were filtered with linear regression, CompCor, and motion correction. Adjacency matrices were constructed with 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4 thresholds. Differences in spatial stability between datasets, atlases, and threshold were evaluated. The higher spatial stability resulted for Characteristic-path-length, Density, Transitivity, and Closeness-centrality, and the lower spatial stability resulted for Bonacich and Katz. Multivariate analysis showed a significant effect of atlas, datasets, and thresholds. Katz and Bonacich centrality, which was subject to larger variations, can be considered an unconventional graph measure, poorly implemented in the clinical field and not yet investigated for reliability assessment. Spatial stability (SS) is affected by threshold, and it decreases with increasing threshold for several measures. Moreover, SS seems to depend on atlas choice and scanning parameters. Our study highlights the importance of paying close attention to possible parcellation-related spatial errors, which may affect the reliability of functional connectivity measures.

Brain Functional Connectivity in Low- and High-Grade Gliomas: Differences in Network Dynamics Associated with Tumor Grade and Location

“…Graph theory is applied to fMRI to study the architecture and complexity of functional networks [ 9 , 10 ] with relevant clinical applications [ 11 ]. Newly diagnosed gliomas demonstrated globally altered functional connectomic profiles in previous studies [ 12 ], while distributed changes of the functional connectome have been shown in glioblastoma patients after surgery [ 13 ].…”

The multiverse of data preprocessing and analysis in graph-based fMRI: A systematic literature review of analytical choices fed into a decision support tool for informed analysis

“…Similarly, the METEOR app can be used to explore the variability of the options, and the one that was commonly used, in the preprocessing steps and facilitate a more informed discussion. The above examples of the variability of the Options in the software and parcellation have also been discussed previously by Bowring et al (2019) and Franco (2022). As an illustration, we examined the variability of Options in the size of the kernel in spatial smoothing, which was also addressed in a previous study by Alahmadi (2021).…”

The time-evolving epileptic brain network: concepts, definitions, accomplishments, perspectives

“…As with the structural neuroimaging techniques, the variety of approaches and methods used in functional network research requires appropriate approaches to verify and increase the reproducibility of results ( Niu et al, 2013 ; Zuo et al, 2014 ; Zuo and Xing, 2014 ; Geng et al, 2017 ; Adamovich et al, 2022 ; Bottino et al, 2022 ; Kato et al, 2022 ; Rolle et al, 2022 ; Wang et al, 2022 ; Helwegen et al, 2023 ). This applies even more to the fusion of structural and functional imaging techniques ( Luat and Chugani, 2008 ; Aiello et al, 2016 ; Babaeeghazvini et al, 2021 ; Wu et al, 2021 ) as well as to the combined use of different functional imaging techniques (e.g., EEG-fNIRS or EEG-fMRI) that is often pursued to balance the disadvantages of one method with the advantages of another method ( Machado et al, 2011 ; Nguyen et al, 2012 ; Centeno and Carmichael, 2014 ; Obrig, 2014 ; Pittau and Vulliemoz, 2015 ; Tousseyn et al, 2015 ; Abreu et al, 2018 ; Sanz-Garcia et al, 2018 ; Rizkallah et al, 2020 ; Anderson et al, 2021 ; Bernabei et al, 2021 ; Uchitel et al, 2021 ; Ikemoto et al, 2022 ; Li et al, 2022 ; Mulert and Lemieux, 2023 ).…”