Dataset Information

Integrated Analysis and Visualization of Group Differences in Structural and Functional Brain Connectivity: Applications in Typical Ageing and Schizophrenia.

ABSTRACT: Structural and functional brain connectivity are increasingly used to identify and analyze group differences in studies of brain disease. This study presents methods to analyze uni- and bi-modal brain connectivity and evaluate their ability to identify differences. Novel visualizations of significantly different connections comparing multiple metrics are presented. On the global level, "bi-modal comparison plots" show the distribution of uni- and bi-modal group differences and the relationship between structure and function. Differences between brain lobes are visualized using "worm plots". Group differences in connections are examined with an existing visualization, the "connectogram". These visualizations were evaluated in two proof-of-concept studies: (1) middle-aged versus elderly subjects; and (2) patients with schizophrenia versus controls. Each included two measures derived from diffusion weighted images and two from functional magnetic resonance images. The structural measures were minimum cost path between two anatomical regions according to the "Statistical Analysis of Minimum cost path based Structural Connectivity" method and the average fractional anisotropy along the fiber. The functional measures were Pearson's correlation and partial correlation of mean regional time series. The relationship between structure and function was similar in both studies. Uni-modal group differences varied greatly between connectivity types. Group differences were identified in both studies globally, within brain lobes and between regions. In the aging study, minimum cost path was highly effective in identifying group differences on all levels; fractional anisotropy and mean correlation showed smaller differences on the brain lobe and regional levels. In the schizophrenia study, minimum cost path and fractional anisotropy showed differences on the global level and within brain lobes; mean correlation showed small differences on the lobe level. Only fractional anisotropy and mean correlation showed regional differences. The presented visualizations were helpful in comparing and evaluating connectivity measures on multiple levels in both studies.

SUBMITTER: Langen CD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4557994 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Integrated Analysis and Visualization of Group Differences in Structural and Functional Brain Connectivity: Applications in Typical Ageing and Schizophrenia.

Langen Carolyn D CD White Tonya T Ikram M Arfan MA Vernooij Meike W MW Niessen Wiro J WJ

PloS one 20150902 9

Structural and functional brain connectivity are increasingly used to identify and analyze group differences in studies of brain disease. This study presents methods to analyze uni- and bi-modal brain connectivity and evaluate their ability to identify differences. Novel visualizations of significantly different connections comparing multiple metrics are presented. On the global level, "bi-modal comparison plots" show the distribution of uni- and bi-modal group differences and the relationship b ...[more]

PMID: 26331844

Similar Datasets

Project description:Resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI) and other technologies have been offering evidence and insights showing that altered brain functional networks are associated with neurological illnesses such as Alzheimer's disease. Exploring brain networks of clinical populations compared to those of controls would be a key inquiry to reveal underlying neurological processes related to such illnesses. For such a purpose, group-level inference is a necessary first step in order to establish whether there are any genuinely disrupted brain subnetworks. Such an analysis is also challenging due to the high dimensionality of the parameters in a network model and high noise levels in neuroimaging data. We are still in the early stage of method development as highlighted by Varoquaux and Craddock (2013) that "there is currently no unique solution, but a spectrum of related methods and analytical strategies" to learn and compare brain connectivity. In practice the important issue of how to choose several critical parameters in estimating a network, such as what association measure to use and what is the sparsity of the estimated network, has not been carefully addressed, largely because the answers are unknown yet. For example, even though the choice of tuning parameters in model estimation has been extensively discussed in the literature, as to be shown here, an optimal choice of a parameter for network estimation may not be optimal in the current context of hypothesis testing. Arbitrarily choosing or mis-specifying such parameters may lead to extremely low-powered tests. Here we develop highly adaptive tests to detect group differences in brain connectivity while accounting for unknown optimal choices of some tuning parameters. The proposed tests combine statistical evidence against a null hypothesis from multiple sources across a range of plausible tuning parameter values reflecting uncertainty with the unknown truth. These highly adaptive tests are not only easy to use, but also high-powered robustly across various scenarios. The usage and advantages of these novel tests are demonstrated on an Alzheimer's disease dataset and simulated data.

Project description:Mapping brain connectivity based on neuroimaging data is a promising new tool for understanding brain structure and function. In this methods paper, we demonstrate that group independent component analysis (GICA) can be used to perform a dual parcellation of the brain based on its connectivity matrix (cmICA). This dual parcellation consists of a set of spatially independent source maps, and a corresponding set of paired dual maps that define the connectivity of each source map to the brain. These dual maps are called the connectivity profiles of the source maps. Traditional analysis of connectivity matrices has been used previously for brain parcellation, but the present method provides additional information on the connectivity of these segmented regions. In this paper, the whole brain structural connectivity matrices were calculated on a 5 mm(3) voxel scale from diffusion imaging data based on the probabilistic tractography method. The effect of the choice of the number of components (30 and 100) and their stability were examined. This method generated a set of spatially independent components that are consistent with the canonical brain tracts provided by previous anatomic descriptions, with the high order model yielding finer segmentations. The corpus-callosum example shows how this method leads to a robust parcellation of a brain structure based on its connectivity properties. We applied cmICA to study structural connectivity differences between a group of schizophrenia subjects and healthy controls. The connectivity profiles at both model orders showed similar regions with reduced connectivity in schizophrenia patients. These regions included forceps major, right inferior fronto-occipital fasciculus, uncinate fasciculus, thalamic radiation, and corticospinal tract. This paper provides a novel unsupervised data-driven framework that summarizes the information in a large global connectivity matrix and tests for brain connectivity differences. It has the potential for capturing important brain changes related to disease in connectivity-based disorders.

Project description:Resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging allows one to study brain functional connectivity, partly motivated by evidence that patients with complex disorders, such as Alzheimer's disease, may have altered functional brain connectivity patterns as compared with healthy subjects. A functional connectivity network describes statistical associations of the neural activities among distinct and distant brain regions. Recently, there is a major interest in group-level functional network analysis; however, there is a relative lack of studies on statistical inference, such as significance testing for group comparisons. In particular, it is still debatable which statistic should be used to measure pairwise associations as the connectivity weights. Many functional connectivity studies have used either (full or marginal) correlations or partial correlations for pairwise associations. This article investigates the performance of using either correlations or partial correlations for testing group differences in brain connectivity, and how sparsity levels and topological structures of the connectivity would influence statistical power to detect group differences. Our results suggest that, in general, testing group differences in networks deviates from estimating networks. For example, high regularization in both covariance matrices and precision matrices may lead to higher statistical power; in particular, optimally selected regularization (e.g., by cross-validation or even at the true sparsity level) on the precision matrices with small estimation errors may have low power. Most importantly, and perhaps surprisingly, using either correlations or partial correlations may give very different testing results, depending on which of the covariance matrices and the precision matrices are sparse. Specifically, if the precision matrices are sparse, presumably and arguably a reasonable assumption, then using correlations often yields much higher powered and more stable testing results than using partial correlations; the conclusion is reversed if the covariance matrices, not the precision matrices, are sparse. These results may have useful implications to future studies on testing functional connectivity differences.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Aripiprazole is a relatively new antipsychotic drug, said to be the prototype of a new third generation of antipsychotics; the so-called dopamine-serotonin system stabilisers. In this review we examine how the efficacy and tolerability of aripiprazole differs from that of typical antipsychotics. OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the effects of aripiprazole compared with other typical antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses. SEARCH STRATEGY:We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (November 2007) which is based on regular searches of BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. We inspected references of all identified studies for further trials. We contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies, drug approval agencies and authors of trials for additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA:We included all randomised trials comparing aripiprazole with typical antipsychotics in people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis, based on a random effects model. We calculated numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) where appropriate. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) again based on a random effects model. We have contacted representatives of Bristol Myers Squibb pharmaceuticals (UK) for additional data. MAIN RESULTS:We included nine randomised trials involving 3122 people comparing aripiprazole with typical antipsychotic drugs. None of the studies reported on relapse - our primary outcome of interest. Attrition from studies was high and data reporting poor. Participants given aripiprazole were comparable to those receiving typical drugs in improving global state and mental state. Aripiprazole provided a significant advantage over typical antipsychotics in terms of fewer occurrences of extra-pyramidal symptom (n=968, 3 RCT, RR 0.46 CI 0.3 to 0.9, NNT 13 CI 17 to 10), and particularly akathisia (n=897, 3 RCT, RR 0.39 CI 0.3 to 0.6, NNT 11 CI 14 to 9). Fewer participants given aripiprazole developed hyperprolactinaemia (n=300, 1 RCT, RR 0.07 CI 0.03 to 0.2, NNT 2 CI 3 to 1). Aripiprazole presented a lesser risk of sinus tachycardia (n=289, 1 RCT, RR 0.09 CI 0.01 to 0.8, NNT 22 CI 63 to 13) and blurred vision (n=308, 1 RCT, RR 0.19 CI 0.1 to 0.7, NNT 14 CI 25 to 10); but enhanced risk of occurrence of dizziness (n=957, 3 RCT, RR 1.88 CI 1.1 to 3.2, NNH 20 CI 33 to 14) and nausea (n=957, 3 RCT, RR 3.03 CI 1.5 to 6.1, NNH 17 CI 25 to 13). Attrition rates were high in both groups, although significantly more participants in the aripiprazole group completed the study in the long term (n=1294, 1 RCT, RR 0.81 CI 0.8 to 0.9 NNT 8 CI 5 to 14). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:Aripiprazole differs little from typical antipsychotic drugs with respect to efficacy, however it presents significant advantages in terms of tolerability. Clearly reported pragmatic short, medium and long term randomised controlled trials are required to replicate and validate these findings and determine the position of aripiprazole in everyday clinical practice.

Dataset Information

Integrated Analysis and Visualization of Group Differences in Structural and Functional Brain Connectivity: Applications in Typical Ageing and Schizophrenia.

Publications

Integrated Analysis and Visualization of Group Differences in Structural and Functional Brain Connectivity: Applications in Typical Ageing and Schizophrenia.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets