The impact of graph construction scheme and community detection algorithm on the repeatability of community and hub identification in structural brain networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A critical question in network neuroscience is how nodes cluster together to form communities, to form the mesoscale organisation of the brain. Various algorithms have been proposed for identifying such communities, each identifying different communities within the same network. Here, (using test-retest data from the Human Connectome Project), the repeatability of thirty-three community detection algorithms, each paired with seven different graph construction schemes were assessed. Repeatability of community partition depended heavily on both the community detection algorithm and graph construction scheme. Hard community detection algorithms (in which each node is assigned to only one community) outperformed soft ones (in which each node can belong to more than one community). The highest repeatability was observed for the fast multi-scale community detection algorithm paired with a graph construction scheme that combines nine white matter metrics. This pair also gave the highest similarity between representative group community affiliation and individual community affiliation. Connector hubs had higher repeatability than provincial hubs. Our results provide a workflow for repeatable identification of structural brain networks communities, based on the optimal pairing of community detection algorithm and graph construction scheme.
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 | 0.031 | 0.151 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".