Connectome embedding in multidimensional graph-invariant spaces
Mach, M.; Amico, E.; Liegeois, R.; Preti, M. G.; Griffa, A.; Van De Ville, D.; Pedersen, M.
Show abstract
The topological organization of brain networks, or connectomes, can be quantified using graph theory. Here, we investigated brain networks in higher dimensional spaces defined by up to ten node-level graph theoretical invariants. Nodal invariants are intrinsic nodal properties which reflect the topological characteristics of the nodes with respect to the whole network, including segregation (e.g., clustering coefficient) and centrality (e.g., betweenness centrality) measures. Using 100 healthy unrelated subjects from the Human Connectome Project, we generated multiple types of connectomes (structural/functional networks and binary/weighted networks) and embedded the corresponding network nodes (brain regions) into multidimensional graph spaces defined by the invariants. First, we observed that nodal invariants are correlated between them (i.e., they carry similar network information) at a whole-brain and subnetwork level. Second, we conducted a machine learning analysis to test whether brain regions embedded in multidimensional graph spaces can be accurately classified into higher order (association, subcortical and cerebellar) and lower order (visual, somatomotor, attention) areas. Brain regions of higher order and lower order brain circuits were classified with an 80-87% accuracy in a 10-dimensional (10D) space. 10D graph metrics performed better than 2D and 3D graph metrics, and non-linear Gaussian kernels performed better than linear kernels. This suggests a non-linear brain network information gain in a high-dimensional graph space. Finally, we quantified the inter-subject Euclidean distance of each brain region embedded in the multidimensional graph space. The inter-individual distance was largest for regions of the default mode and frontoparietal networks, providing a new avenue for subject-specific network coordinates in a multidimensional space. To conclude, we propose a new framework for quantifying connectome features in multidimensional spaces defined by graph invariants, providing a new avenue for subject-specific network coordinates and inter-individual distance analyses.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Network alignment and similarity reveal atlas-based topological differences in structural connectomes 98%
- NBS-SNI, an extension of the Network-based statistic: Investigating differences in functional connections between important structural actors in case-control studies 97%
- Estimation of Global and Local Complexities of Brain Networks: A Random Walks Approach 96%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- The Impact of Graph Construction Scheme and Community Detection Algorithm on the Reliability of Community and Hub Identification in Structural Brain Networks 97%
- Topologically Optimized Intrinsic Brain Networks 96%
- Big Data, Small Bias: Harmonizing Diffusion MRI-Based Structural Connectomes to Mitigate Site-Related Bias in Data Integration 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Deep Graph Neural Network Architecture for Modelling Spatio-temporal Dynamics in resting-state functional MRI Data 97%
- Deep learning models of cognitive processes constrained by human brain connectomes 95%
- Cross-covariance isolate detect: a new change-point method for estimating dynamic functional connectivity 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Personalized models of Disorders of Consciousness revealcomplementary roles of connectivity and local parameters in diagnosis and prognosis 96%
- Fractal Dimension of Cortical Functional Connectivity Networks Predicts Severity in Disorders of Consciousness 96%
- Eigenvector alignment: assessing functional network changes in amnestic mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.