Characterizing Streamline Count Invariant Graph Measures of Structural Connectomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While graph measures are used increasingly to characterize human connectomes, uncertainty remains in how to use these metrics in a quantitative and reproducible manner. Specifically, there is a lack of community consensus regarding the number of streamlines needed to generate connectomes. PURPOSE: The purpose was to define the relationship between streamline count and graph-measure value, reproducibility, and repeatability. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective analysis of previously prospective study. POPULATION: Ten healthy subjects, 70% female, aged 25.3 ± 5.9 years. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: ). ASSESSMENT: A total of 13 graph-theory measures were derived for each subject by generating probabilistic whole-brain tractography from DWI and mapping the structural connectivity to connectomes. The streamline count invariance from changes in mean, repeatability, and reproducibility were derived. STATISTICAL TESTS: Paired t-test with P value <0.05 was used to compare graph-measure means with a reference, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to measure repeatability, and concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) to measure reproducibility. RESULTS: Modularity and global efficiency converged to their reference mean with ICC > 0.90 and CCC > 0.99. Edge count, small-worldness, randomness, and average betweenness centrality converged to the reference mean, with ICC > 0.90 and CCC > 0.95. Assortativity and average participation coefficient converged with ICC > 0.75 and CCC > 0.90. Density, average node strength, average node degree, characteristic path length, average local efficiency, and average clustering coefficient did not converge, though had ICC > 0.90 and CCC > 0.99. For these measures, alternate definitions that converge a reference mean are provided. DATA CONCLUSION: Modularity and global efficiency are streamline count invariant for greater than 6 million and 100,000 streamlines, respectively. Density, average node strength, average node degree, characteristic path length, average local efficiency, and average clustering coefficient were strongly dependent on streamline count. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 1. TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 1.
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 | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".