Graph theoretic analysis of structural connectivity across the spectrum of Alzheimer's disease: The importance of graph creation methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Graph theory is increasingly being used to study brain connectivity across the spectrum of Alzheimer's disease (AD), but prior findings have been inconsistent, likely reflecting methodological differences. We systematically investigated how methods of graph creation (i.e., type of correlation matrix and edge weighting) affect structural network properties and group differences. We estimated the structural connectivity of brain networks based on correlation maps of cortical thickness obtained from MRI. Four groups were compared: 126 cognitively normal older adults, 103 individuals with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) who retained MCI status for at least 3 years (stable MCI), 108 individuals with MCI who progressed to AD-dementia within 3 years (progressive MCI), and 105 individuals with AD-dementia. Small-world measures of connectivity (characteristic path length and clustering coefficient) differed across groups, consistent with prior studies. Groups were best discriminated by the Randić index, which measures the degree to which highly connected nodes connect to other highly connected nodes. The Randić index differentiated the stable and progressive MCI groups, suggesting that it might be useful for tracking and predicting the progression of AD. Notably, however, the magnitude and direction of group differences in all three measures were dependent on the method of graph creation, indicating that it is crucial to take into account how graphs are constructed when interpreting differences across diagnostic groups and studies. The algebraic connectivity measures showed few group differences, independent of the method of graph construction, suggesting that global connectivity as it relates to node degree is not altered in early AD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".