Cited by 157Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsComplex Network Analysis Techniques

Overcoming the effects of false positives and threshold bias in graph theoretical analyses of neuroimaging data

Open access
Drakesmith, M., Caeyenberghs, K., Dutt, A., Lewis, G., David, A.S., Jones, D.K.·2015·NeuroImage

Abstract

Graph theory (GT) is a powerful framework for quantifying topological features of neuroimaging-derived functional and structural networks. However, false positive (FP) connections arise frequently and influence the inferred topology of networks. Thresholding is often used to overcome this problem, but an appropriate threshold often relies on a priori assumptions, which will alter inferred network topologies. Four common network metrics (global efficiency, mean clustering coefficient, mean betweenness and smallworldness) were tested using a model tractography dataset. It was found that all four network metrics were significantly affected even by just one FP. Results also show that thresholding effectively dampens the impact of FPs, but at the expense of adding significant bias to network metrics. In a larger number (n=248) of tractography datasets, statistics were computed across random group permutations for a range of thresholds, revealing that statistics for network metrics varied significantly more than for non-network metrics (i.e., number of streamlines and number of edges). Varying degrees of network atrophy were introduced artificially to half the datasets, to test sensitivity to genuine group differences. For some network metrics, this atrophy was detected as significant (p<0.05, determined using permutation testing) only across a limited range of thresholds. We propose a multi-threshold permutation correction (MTPC) method, based on the cluster-enhanced permutation correction approach, to identify sustained significant effects across clusters of thresholds. This approach minimises requirements to determine a single threshold a priori. We demonstrate improved sensitivity of MTPC-corrected metrics to genuine group effects compared to an existing approach and demonstrate the use of MTPC on a previously published network analysis of tractography data derived from a clinical population. In conclusion, we show that there are large biases and instability induced by thresholding, making statistical comparisons of network metrics difficult. However, by testing for effects across multiple thresholds using MTPC, true group differences can be robustly identified.

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.2015.05.011

Cites

131 of 131 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is ongoing disagreement about whether filtering methods are beneficial or detrimental to the structural connectome.

    “Research is still underway to determine the best method(s) for filtering, with some disagreement on the beneficial versus detrimental effect of these methods on the structural connectome (Buchanan et al., 2020; Civier et al., 2019; Drakesmith et al., 2015; Frigo et al., 2020; Schiavi et al., 2020a; Yeh et al., 2016a).”

    From Quantitative mapping of the brain’s structural connectivity using diffusion MRI tractography: A review (2022) · cites this paper as Drakesmith et al., 2015

    The Introduction’s “Thresholding” section says removing weak connections can suppress false positives but can also remove genuine connections and bias network metrics; it calls the alternative of leaving graphs unthresholded contentious. This supports a beneficial-versus-detrimental trade-off for network thresholding, but the paper does not establish disagreement about filtering methods for the structural connectome generally. Page numbers were not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • False positive tract reconstructions may lead to biased characterization of connectome topology.

    “This may lead to biased characterization of connectome topology, particularly in the presence of false positive tract reconstructions (Drakesmith et al. 2015; Zalesky et al. 2016).”
  • False-positive connections can severely bias estimation of connectivity.

    “and that these erroneous connections can severely bias the estimation of connectivity (Drakesmith et al., 2015; Maier-Hein et al., 2017; Zalesky et al., 2016b).”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Parker G.D. Marshall D. Rosin P.L. Drage N. Richmond S. Jones D.K. Fast and fully automated clustering of whole brain tractography results using shape-space analysis Proceedings of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. Salt Lake City, USA 2013 778

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Drakesmith, M., Caeyenberghs, K., Dutt, A., Lewis, G., David, A. S., & Jones, D. K.
Affiliations
  • Cardiff University (GB)
  • Australian Catholic University (AU)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Drakesmith, M.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-09
Volume
118
Pages
313-333
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2136211807
Cited by
157
References
131
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 2
FWCI
8.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Bank (Australian Catholic University) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Medical Research Council, UK (G0901885)
  • Wellcome Trust (096646/Z/11/Z)
  • NIHR Biomedical Research Centre
  • Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
  • Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
Keywords
graph theory, threshold bias, tractography, network topology, global efficiency, clustering coefficient, betweenness centrality, small-worldness, group differences
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Models, Neurological, Nerve Net, Neural Pathways, Statistics as Topic, Reproducibility of Results, Artifacts, Young Adult, Neuroimaging

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