Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Boston University Boston, MA, USA ; Department of Neuroimaging, Centre for Neuroimaging Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London London, UK ; National Institute of Health Research, Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health and Biomedical Research Unit for Dementia London, UK.
Laboratoire d'Etude des Mécanismes Cognitifs, EA 3082, Université Lyon II Lyon, France.
Front Comput Neurosci. 2014 May 6;8:51. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2014.00051. eCollection 2014.
Comparing networks in neuroscience is hard, because the topological properties of a given network are necessarily dependent on the number of edges in that network. This problem arises in the analysis of both weighted and unweighted networks. The term density is often used in this context, in order to refer to the mean edge weight of a weighted network, or to the number of edges in an unweighted one. Comparing families of networks is therefore statistically difficult because differences in topology are necessarily associated with differences in density. In this review paper, we consider this problem from two different perspectives, which include (i) the construction of summary networks, such as how to compute and visualize the summary network from a sample of network-valued data points; and (ii) how to test for topological differences, when two families of networks also exhibit significant differences in density. In the first instance, we show that the issue of summarizing a family of networks can be conducted by either adopting a mass-univariate approach, which produces a statistical parametric network (SPN). In the second part of this review, we then highlight the inherent problems associated with the comparison of topological functions of families of networks that differ in density. In particular, we show that a wide range of topological summaries, such as global efficiency and network modularity are highly sensitive to differences in density. Moreover, these problems are not restricted to unweighted metrics, as we demonstrate that the same issues remain present when considering the weighted versions of these metrics. We conclude by encouraging caution, when reporting such statistical comparisons, and by emphasizing the importance of constructing summary networks.
比较神经科学中的网络很困难,因为给定网络的拓扑性质必然取决于该网络中的边数。这个问题出现在加权和非加权网络的分析中。在这种情况下,经常使用术语“密度”来表示加权网络的平均边权重,或无权重网络中的边数。因此,比较网络家族在统计学上是困难的,因为拓扑差异必然与密度差异相关。在这篇综述论文中,我们从两个不同的角度考虑了这个问题,包括 (i) 摘要网络的构建,例如如何从网络值数据点的样本中计算和可视化摘要网络;以及 (ii) 如何在两个网络家族的密度也存在显著差异时测试拓扑差异。在第一种情况下,我们表明可以通过采用多变量方法来总结网络家族的问题,该方法产生统计参数网络 (SPN)。在本综述的第二部分,我们强调了密度不同的网络家族拓扑函数比较所固有的问题。特别是,我们表明,广泛的拓扑摘要,如全局效率和网络模块化,对密度差异非常敏感。此外,这些问题不仅限于非加权度量,因为我们证明了在考虑这些度量的加权版本时,同样的问题仍然存在。最后,我们在报告此类统计比较时建议谨慎,并强调构建摘要网络的重要性。