A Graph-Based Statistical Approach to Identifying Functional Connectivity Networks in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury
Iranian Journal of Child Neurology,
Vol. 19 No. 1 (2025),
7 January 2025
,
Page 65-77
https://doi.org/10.22037/ijcn.v19i1.44921
Abstract
Objectives
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is one of the most common types of brain injuries associated with cognitive impairments. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies can provide a unique opportunity to examine brain connectivity patterns and understand the neural substrates of cognitive outcomes following traumatic injury. Therefore, this study aims to determine changes in functional connectivity patterns in patients with TBI compared to healthy individuals using two graph models, adaptive dense subgraph discovery (ADSD) and variance component.
Materials & Methods
This study used fMRI data downloaded from https://openneuro.org. These data included 14 patients with TBI aged between 18 and 36 and 12 healthy individuals (female: N=6, male: N=6) aged between 19 and 52. Out of the 74 regions examined, a cluster of 18 regions related to TBI was identified using the ADSD model. Subsequently, these identified regions were used as input for the variance component model to investigate changes in connectivity patterns.
Results
Functional connectivity between an 18-brain region cluster, such as the Rectus (Left, Right), Supp_Motor_Area (Left, Right), and Middle Cingulum (Left, Right), differed between the patient and healthy groups. Based on the analysis of functional connectivity between pairs of brain regions, 153 connections between pairs of brain regions were compared in the two groups, out of which 63 connections showed significant differences between the two groups. Compared to other regions, Supp_Motor_Area_Right and Rectus_Left had more connections.
Conclusion
The study’s results indicate that the functional connectivity between the Cingulum, Hippocampus, Fusiform, Supp_Motor_Area, and Precentral regions differs between the two groups. Since these regions are involved in processes such as memory, learning, spatial orientation, face recognition, coordination, and motor control, changes in their functional connectivity may lead to impairments in these areas.
- Traumatic Brain Injury
- Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging
- Functional Connectivity
- Graph model
How to Cite
References
Dewan MC, Rattani A, Gupta S, Baticulon RE, Hung Y-C, Punchak M, et al. Estimating the global incidence of traumatic brain injury. Journal of neurosurgery. 2018;130(4):1080-97.
Dang B, Chen W, He W, Chen G. Rehabilitation treatment and progress of traumatic brain injury dysfunction. Neural plasticity. 2017;2017.
Martínez‐Molina N, Siponkoski ST, Särkämö T. Cognitive efficacy and neural mechanisms of music‐based neurological rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2022;1515(1):20-32.
Caeyenberghs K, Verhelst H, Clemente A, Wilson PH. Mapping the functional connectome in traumatic brain injury: What can graph metrics tell us? Neuroimage. 2017;160:113-23.
Sharp DJ, Scott G, Leech R. Network dysfunction after traumatic brain injury. Nature Reviews Neurology. 2014;10(3):156-66.
Kim S-G, Bandettini PA. Principles of BOLD functional MRI. Functional Neuroradiology: Principles and Clinical Applications: Springer; 2023. p. 461-72.
Menon SS, Krishnamurthy K. A comparison of static and dynamic functional connectivities for identifying subjects and biological sex using intrinsic individual brain connectivity. Scientific reports. 2019;9(1):5729.
Mohanty R, Sethares WA, Nair VA, Prabhakaran V. Rethinking measures of functional connectivity via feature extraction. Scientific reports. 2020;10(1):1298.
Abdul Rahman MR, Abd Hamid AI, Noh NA, Omar H, Chai WJ, Idris Z, et al. Alteration in the functional organization of the default mode network following closed non-severe traumatic brain injury. Frontiers in Neuroscience. 2022;16:833320.
Raizman R, Itzhaki N, Sirkin J, Meningher I, Tsarfaty G, Keren O, et al. Decreased homotopic functional connectivity in traumatic brain injury. Cerebral Cortex. 2023;33(4):1207-16.
Wood RL, Worthington A. Neurobehavioral abnormalities associated with executive dysfunction after traumatic brain injury. Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience. 2017;11:195.
Hallquist MN, Hillary FG. Graph theory approaches to functional network organization in brain disorders: A critique for a brave new small-world. Network Neuroscience. 2018;3(1):1-26.
Xia Y, Li L. Matrix graph hypothesis testing and application in brain connectivity alternation detection. Statistica Sinica. 2019;29(1):303-28.
Fiecas M, Cribben I, Bahktiari R, Cummine J. A variance components model for statistical inference on functional connectivity networks. NeuroImage. 2017;149:256-66.
Wu Q, Huang X, Culbreth AJ, Waltz JA, Hong LE, Chen S. Extracting brain disease‐related connectome subgraphs by adaptive dense subgraph discovery. Biometrics. 2022;78(4):1566-78.
Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal statistical society: series B (Methodological). 1995;57(1):289-300.
Banker L, Tadi P. Neuroanatomy, precentral gyrus. 2019.
Ruan J, Bludau S, Palomero-Gallagher N, Caspers S, Mohlberg H, Eickhoff SB, et al. Cytoarchitecture, probability maps, and functions of the human supplementary and pre-supplementary motor areas. Brain Structure and Function. 2018;223:4169-86.
Zhou G, Lane G, Cooper SL, Kahnt T, Zelano C. Characterizing functional pathways of the human olfactory system. Elife. 2019;8:e47177.
Bubb EJ, Metzler-Baddeley C, Aggleton JP. The cingulum bundle: anatomy, function, and dysfunction. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 2018;92:104-27.
Aminoff E, Gronau N, Bar M. The parahippocampal cortex mediates spatial and nonspatial associations. Cerebral cortex. 2007;17(7):1493-503.
Anand KS, Dhikav V. Hippocampus in health and disease: An overview. Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology. 2012;15(4):239.
Palejwala AH, O’Connor KP, Milton CK, Anderson C, Pelargos P, Briggs RG, et al. Anatomy and white matter connections of the fusiform gyrus. Scientific reports. 2020;10(1):13489.
Nakuci J, McGuire M, Schweser F, Poulsen D, Muldoon SF. Differential patterns of change in brain connectivity resulting from severe traumatic brain injury. Brain connectivity. 2022;12(9):799-811.
Iraji A, Chen H, Wiseman N, Welch RD, O’Neil BJ, Haacke EM, et al. Compensation through functional hyperconnectivity: a longitudinal connectome assessment of mild traumatic brain injury. Neural Plasticity. 2016;2016.
Konstantinou N, Pettemeridou E, Stamatakis EA, Seimenis I, Constantinidou F. Altered resting functional connectivity is related to cognitive outcome in males with moderate-severe traumatic brain injury. Frontiers in neurology. 2019;9:1163.
Lu L, Li F, Chen H, Wang P, Zhang H, Chen Y-C, et al. Functional connectivity dysfunction of insular subdivisions in cognitive impairment after acute mild traumatic brain injury. Brain imaging and behavior. 2020;14:941-8.
Amir J, Nair JKR, Del Carpio‐O'Donovan R, Ptito A, Chen JK, Chankowsky J, et al. Atypical resting state functional connectivity in mild traumatic brain injury. Brain and behavior. 2021;11(8):e2261.
Olazadeh K, Borumndnia N, Habibi M, Alavi Majd H. Use of the Longitudinal Model of Variance Components to Determine Hyper-Connectivity in Patients with Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Using Rs_fMRI Data. Basic and Clinical Neuroscience.0-.
- Abstract Viewed: 293 times