Cited by 275Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesComplex Network Analysis Techniques

Connectome sensitivity or specificity: which is more important?

Open access
Zalesky, Andrew, Fornito, Alex, Cocchi, Luca, Gollo, Leonardo L., van den Heuvel, Martijn P., Breakspear, Michael·2016·NeuroImage

Abstract

Connectomes with high sensitivity and high specificity are unattainable with current axonal fiber reconstruction methods, particularly at the macro-scale afforded by magnetic resonance imaging. Tensor-guided deterministic tractography yields sparse connectomes that are incomplete and contain false negatives (FNs), whereas probabilistic methods steered by crossing-fiber models yield dense connectomes, often with low specificity due to false positives (FPs). Densely reconstructed probabilistic connectomes are typically thresholded to improve specificity at the cost of a reduction in sensitivity. What is the optimal tradeoff between connectome sensitivity and specificity? We show empirically and theoretically that specificity is paramount. Our evaluations of the impact of FPs and FNs on empirical connectomes indicate that specificity is at least twice as important as sensitivity when estimating key properties of brain networks, including topological measures of network clustering, network efficiency and network modularity. Our asymptotic analysis of small-world networks with idealized modular structure reveals that as the number of nodes grows, specificity becomes exactly twice as important as sensitivity to the estimation of the clustering coefficient. For the estimation of network efficiency, the relative importance of specificity grows linearly with the number of nodes. The greater importance of specificity is due to FPs occurring more prevalently between network modules rather than within them. These spurious inter-modular connections have a dramatic impact on network topology. We argue that efforts to maximize the sensitivity of connectome reconstruction should be realigned with the need to map brain networks with high specificity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.06.035

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zalesky, A., Fornito, A., Cocchi, L., Gollo, L. L., van den Heuvel, M. P., & Breakspear, M.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Monash University (AU)
  • QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute (AU)
Corresponding author
Zalesky, Andrew
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-11
Volume
142
Pages
407-420
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2467410077
Cited by
275
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 3
FWCI
28.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (submittedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (1050504, 1066779, 1047648, 1037196, 1103252, 1099082)
  • Australian Research Council (FT130100589, CE140100007)
  • Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (451-12-001)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
Keywords
probabilistic tractography, deterministic tractography, false positives, false-negative results, brain network topology, clustering coefficient, network efficiency, network modularity, small-world networks, connectome reconstruction
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Sensitivity and Specificity, Connectome

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