Dynamic Graph Theoretical Analysis of Functional Connectivity in Parkinson's Disease: The Importance of Fiedler Value
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Graph theoretical analysis is a powerful tool for quantitatively evaluating brain connectivity networks. Conventionally, brain connectivity is assumed to be temporally stationary, whereas increasing evidence suggests that functional connectivity exhibits temporal variations during dynamic brain activity. Although a number of methods have been developed to estimate time-dependent brain connectivity, there is a paucity of studies examining the utility of brain dynamics for assessing brain disease states. Therefore, this paper aims to assess brain connectivity dynamics in Parkinson's disease (PD) and determine the utility of such dynamic graph measures as potential components to an imaging biomarker. Resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging data were collected from 29 healthy controls and 69 PD subjects. Time-varying functional connectivity was first estimated using a sliding windowed sparse inverse covariance matrix. Then, a collection of graph measures, including the Fiedler value, were computed and the dynamics of the graph measures were investigated. The results demonstrated that PD subjects had a lower variability in the Fiedler value, modularity, and global efficiency, indicating both abnormal dynamic global integration and local segregation of brain networks in PD. Autoregressive models fitted to the dynamic graph measures suggested that Fiedler value, characteristic path length, global efficiency, and modularity were all less deterministic in PD. With canonical correlation analysis, the altered dynamics of functional connectivity networks, and particularly dynamic Fiedler value, were shown to be related with disease severity and other clinical variables including age. Similarly, Fiedler value was the most important feature for classification. Collectively, our findings demonstrate altered dynamic graph properties, and in particular the Fiedler value, provide an additional dimension upon which to non-invasively and quantitatively assess PD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".