Effect of tumor resection on the characteristics of functional brain networks

Physical Review E - Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics

Volumn 82, Issue 2, 2010, Pages

  Wang, H ^a   Douw, L ^b   Hernandez J M ^a   Reijneveld, J C ^b   Stam, C J ^b   Van Mieghem, P ^a  

^a Delft University of Technology   (Netherlands)

^b VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADJACENCY MATRICES; BEFORE AND AFTER; BRAIN AREAS; BRAIN NETWORKS; BRAIN TUMORS; COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE; FUNCTIONAL INTERACTION; GLOBAL TRANSPORT; INFORMATION TRANSFERS; LARGEST EIGENVALUES; LINK WEIGHTS; SUBGRAPHS; TUMOR RESECTION; VIRUS SPREADING; WEIGHTED NETWORKS;

EIGENVALUES AND EIGENFUNCTIONS; ELECTRIC NETWORK ANALYSIS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; NEUROSURGERY; TUMORS; VIRUSES;

COMPUTER VIRUSES;

EID: 77956110597     PISSN: 15393755     EISSN: 15502376     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.82.021924     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. M. E. J. Newman, SIAM Rev. 45, 167 (2003). 10.1137/S003614450342480
2. L. da F. Costa, F. A. Rodrigues, G. Travieso, and P. R. Villas Boas, Adv. Phys. 56, 167, 2007. 10.1080/00018730601170527
3. H. Wang, J. M. Hernandez, and P. Van Mieghem, Phys. Rev. E 77, 046105 (2008). 10.1103/PhysRevE.77.046105
4. D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz, Nature (London) 393, 440 (1998). 10.1038/30918
5. J. C. Reijneveld, S. C. Ponten, H. W. Berendse, and C. J. Stam, Clin. Neurophysiol. 118, 2317 (2007). 10.1016/j.clinph.2007.08.010
6. C. J. Stam and J. C. Reijneveld, Nonlinear Biomed. Phys. 1, 3 (2007). 10.1186/1753-4631-1-3
7. A. M. Aertsen, G. L. Gerstein, M. K. Habib, and G. Palm, J. Neurophysiol. 61, 900 (1989).
8. F. Bartolomei, I. Bosma, M. Klein, J. C. Baayen, J. C. Reijneveld, T. J. Postma, J. J. Heimans, B. W. van Dijk, J. C. de Munck, A. de Jongh, K. S. Cover, and C. J. Stam, Clin. Neurophysiol. 117, 2039 (2006). 10.1016/j.clinph.2006.05. 018
9. I. Bosma, J. C. Reijneveld, M. Klein, L. Douw, B. W. van Dijk, J. J. Heimans, and C. J. Stam, Nonlinear Biomed. Phys. 3, 9 (2009). 10.1186/1753-4631-3-9
10. L. Douw, H. Baayen, I. Bosma, M. Klein, P. Vandertop, J. Heimans, K. Stam, J. de Munck, and J. Reijneveld, Exp. Neurol. 212, 285 (2008). 10.1016/j.expneurol.2008.03.013
11. A. Barrat, M. Barthélemy, R. Pastor-Satorras, and A. Vespignani, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101, 3747 (2004). 10.1073/pnas.0400087101
12. J.-P. Onnela, J. Saramäki, J. Hyvonen, G. Szabó, M. Argollo de Menezes, K. Kaski, A.-L. Barabási, and J. Kertész, New J. Phys. 9, 179 (2007). 10.1088/1367-2630/9/6/179
13. M. Á. Serrano, M. Boguñá, and R. Pastor-Satorras, Phys. Rev. E 74, 055101 (R) (2006). 10.1103/PhysRevE.74.055101
14. J. J. Ramasco and B. Gonçalves, Phys. Rev. E 76, 066106 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevE.76.066106
15. L. Douw, J. C. Baayen, M. Klein, D. Velis, W. C. Alpherts, J. Bot, J. J. Heimans, J. C. Reijneveld, and C. J. Stam, Neuroimage 46, 584 (2009). 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.02.034
16. C. J. Stam, Brain 132, 213 (2009). 10.1093/brain/awn262
17. E. van Dellen, PLoS ONE 4, e8081 (2009). 10.1371/journal.pone.0008081
18. C. J. Stam and B. W. van Dijk, Physica D 163, 236 (2002). 10.1016/S0167-2789(01)00386-4
19. N. F. Rulkov, M. M. Sushchik, L. S. Tsimring, and H. D. Abarbanel, Phys. Rev. E 51, 980 (1995). 10.1103/PhysRevE.51.980
20. D. S. Bassett, A. Meyer-Lindenberg, S. Achard, T. Duke, and E. Bullmore, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103, 19518 (2006). 10.1073/pnas.0606005103
21. Y. He, Z. J. Chen, and A. C. Evans, Cereb. Cortex 17, 2407 (2007). 10.1093/cercor/bhl149
22. G. Gong, Y. He, L. Concha, C. Lebel, D. W. Gross, A. C. Evans, and C. Beaulieu, Cereb. Cortex 19, 524 (2009). 10.1093/cercor/bhn102
23. P. Van Mieghem and H. Wang, IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 17, 93 (2009). 10.1109/TNET.2008.925089
24. A weight-reshuffled graph can be obtained by collecting all the link weights in the original network and by randomly reassigning them to the links in the original network topology. Equivalently, half, e.g., upper right of the original adjacency matrix is randomly shuffled and then is mapped to the lower-left part of the adjaceny matrix, whose symmetry is reserved in this weight-reshuffling process.
25. F. Wilcoxon, Biometrics 1, 80 (1945). 10.2307/3001968
26. With N = 150, we are able to compare the link weight correlation around a node via (s i + s j) / 2 (N - 1) versus w i j in networks measured before and after neurosurgery, because almost the same link weight distribution is followed.
27. Instead of making scatter plots of all [(s i + s j) / 2 (N - 1), w i j] pairs which heavily overlap, we divide the link weight range [0,1] into 100 bins, and over each bin we calculate the average (s i + s j) / 2 (N - 1) corresponding to those w i j that belong to the same bin.
28. J.-P. Onnela, J. Saramäki, J. Kertész, and K. Kaski, Phys. Rev. E 71, 065103 (R) (2005). 10.1103/PhysRevE.71.065103
29. ij.
30. Joseph B. Kruskal, Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 7, 48 (1956). 10.1090/S0002-9939-1956-0078686-7
31. M. Chavez, M. Valencia, V. Navarro, V. Latora, and J. Martinerie, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 118701 (2010). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.118701
32. Transport is assumed to follow the shortest paths.
33. P. Van Mieghem, Performance Analysis of Communications Networks and Systems (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2006). 10.1017/CBO9780511616488
34. E. R. van Dam and W. H. Haemers, Discrete Math. 309, 576 (2009). 10.1016/j.disc.2008.08.019
35. E. Wigner, Ann. Math. 67, 325 (1958). 10.2307/1970008
36. P. Van Mieghem, Graph Spectra for Complex Networks (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England) (to be published).
37. P. Van Mieghem, J. Omic, and R. E. Kooij, IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 17, 1 (2009). 10.1109/TNET.2008.925623
38. J. G. Restrepo, E. Ott, and Brian R. Hunt, Phys. Rev. E 71, 036151 (2005). 10.1103/PhysRevE.71.036151
39. Weighted network analysis could be noisy if the weakest link weights may not represent real coupling, but statistical fluctuations in the coupling measure.
40. The construction of a MaST shows that, if node i is the last node to join the MaST by including link (i, k), w i k = w min (MaST) and w i k must be the largest link weight among all links connected to node i, or else node i can join the MaST by another link incident to it, but with higher link weight. Any other subgraph G s (N) spanning all nodes must contain at least one link connected to node i, whose weight is smaller or equal to w i k = w min (MaST) and which can be larger than w min (G s (N)). Hence, w min (G s (N)) ≤ w min (MaST).
41. Thus, E [D] / N = 20 % of the original links with the highest link weights are included, resulting in a small number of networks with only few disconnected nodes. These disconnected nodes, although small in number, are all taken into account in the unweighted analysis, because such disconnectivity also reveals information about the weighted networks.
42. R. Pastor-Satorras, A. Vazquez, and A. Vespignani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 258701 (2001). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.258701
43. E. Bullmore and O. Sporns, Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 10, 186 (2009). 10.1038/nrn2575