Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 889

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Weight-conserving characterization of complex functional brain networks

Open access
Rubinov, Mikail, Sporns, Olaf·2011·NeuroImage

Abstract

Complex functional brain networks are large networks of brain regions and functional brain connections. Statistical characterizations of these networks aim to quantify global and local properties of brain activity with a small number of network measures. Important functional network measures include measures of modularity (measures of the goodness with which a network is optimally partitioned into functional subgroups) and measures of centrality (measures of the functional influence of individual brain regions). Characterizations of functional networks are increasing in popularity, but are associated with several important methodological problems. These problems include the inability to characterize densely connected and weighted functional networks, the neglect of degenerate topologically distinct high-modularity partitions of these networks, and the absence of a network null model for testing hypotheses of association between observed nontrivial network properties and simple weighted connectivity properties. In this study we describe a set of methods to overcome these problems. Specifically, we generalize measures of modularity and centrality to fully connected and weighted complex networks, describe the detection of degenerate high-modularity partitions of these networks, and introduce a weighted-connectivity null model of these networks. We illustrate our methods by demonstrating degenerate high-modularity partitions and strong correlations between two complementary measures of centrality in resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) networks from the 1000 Functional Connectomes Project, an open-access repository of resting-state functional MRI datasets. Our methods may allow more sound and reliable characterizations and comparisons of functional brain networks across conditions and subjects.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.03.069

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 49 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Duggal, G., Navlakha, S., Girvan, M., Kingsford, C., 2010. Uncovering many views of biological networks using ensembles of near-optimal partitions. MultiClust: 1st International Workshop on Discovering, Summarizing and Using Multiple Clusterings at KDD.

Cited by

See all 889

Metadata

Authors
Rubinov, M., & Sporns, O.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-06
Volume
56
Issue
4
Pages
2068-2079
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2068252829
Cited by
889
References
49
FWCI
19.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Funders
  • Human Connectome Project (1U54MH091657-01)
  • JS McDonnell Foundation
  • CSIRO ICT centre

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Weight-conserving characterization of complex functional brain networks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.03.069
The paper
Rubinov, M., & Sporns, O. (2011). Weight-conserving characterization of complex functional brain networks. NeuroImage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.03.069

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.