Table Info

Table 2.

MST metrics and mean comparison test results by group at time-point T1 = 10,000, T2 = 20,000, and T3 = 30,000

Metrics	Time	Group			Statistic		P-value
Metrics	Time	LT	RT	HC	AOV	Kruskal-Wallis	AOV	Kruskal-Wallis
Max of degree	T1	6.381 (1.203)	5.571 (0.978)	6.174 (1.141)	3.083	5.540	0.051	0.063
	T2	6.429 (1.165)	5.905 (1.091)	6.065 (1.000)	1.379	2.308	0.257	0.315
	T3	6.476 (1.436)	5.762 (1.044)	6.109 (1.100)	1.939	3.606	0.150	0.165
Max of BC	T1	0.627 (0.044)	0.648 (0.043)	0.632 (0.050)	1.172	3.168	0.315	0.205
	T2	0.648 (0.055)	0.648 (0.054)	0.635 (0.051)	0.613	1.082	0.544	0.582
	T3	0.636 (0.047)	0.631 (0.042)	0.640 (0.054)	0.187	0.217	0.830	0.897
Mean of BC	T1	0.098 (0.010)	0.102 (0.011)	0.095 (0.009)	4.620	7.901	0.012^*	0.019^*
	T2	0.093 (0.009)	0.102 (0.013)	0.095 (0.008)	5.183	6.469	0.008^*	0.040^*
	T3	0.101 (0.012)	0.100 (0.010)	0.095 (0.009)	3.449	7.902	0.036^*	0.019^*
Eccentricity	T1	14.612 (1.637)	15.183 (2.075)	14.304 (1.788)	1.670	3.181	0.194	0.204
	T2	13.928 (1.446)	15.126 (1.939)	14.261 (1.551)	3.139	5.224	0.048^*	0.073
	T3	15.033 (1.928)	15.085 (1.567)	14.280 (1.755)	2.166	5.843	0.121	0.054
Diameter	T1	18.620 (2.224)	19.524 (2.909)	18.478 (2.492)	1.267	2.634	0.287	0.268
	T2	17.857 (1.852)	19.571 (2.461)	18.413 (2.146)	3.518	5.923	0.034^*	0.052
	T3	19.095 (2.385)	19.619 (2.012)	18.522 (2.483)	1.638	4.889	0.200	0.087
Average shortest path length	T1	7.883 (0.690)	8.160 (0.780)	7.620 (0.637)	4.620	7.901	0.012^*	0.019^*
	T2	7.541 (0.648)	8.149 (0.893)	7.646 (0.571)	5.183	6.469	0.008^*	0.039^*
	T3	8.058 (0.857)	7.991 (0.703)	7.619 (0.675)	3.449	7.902	0.036^*	0.019^*
Tree hierarchy	T1	0.011 (0.001)	0.011 (0.001)	0.011 (0.001)	1.343	3.168	0.267	0.205
	T2	0.011 (0.001)	0.011 (0.001)	0.011 (0.001)	0.630	1.082	0.535	0.582
	T3	0.011 (0.001)	0.011 (0.001)	0.011 (0.001)	0.127	0.217	0.881	0.897
Leaf fraction	T1	0.450 (0.041)	0.418 (0.048)	0.454 (0.038)	5.795	8.639	0.004^*	0.013^*
	T2	0.451 (0.036)	0.427 (0.041)	0.449 (0.038)	2.883	4.743	0.061	0.093
	T3	0.449 (0.029)	0.427 (0.043)	0.444 (0.039)	2.024	3.370	0.139	0.186

^* means statistically significant at 0.05 level; ANOVA is denoted as AOV

Declarations

Author contributions

SS: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Software, Validation, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing. CKC: Conceptualization, Data curation, Resources, Writing—review & editing. JK: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Validation, Writing—review & editing, Supervision. All authors read and approved the submitted version.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

The study protocol was approved by the Seoul National University Hospital Institutional Review Board (IRBH-0607-029-178).

Consent to participate

Informed consent to participate in the study was obtained from all participants.

Consent to publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets for this manuscript are not publicly available because raw data were generated at Seoul National University Hospital. Requests for accessing the datasets should be directed to Dr. Chung (chungc@snu.ac.kr).

Funding

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) [No. 2021R1A4A5028907] and Basic Research [No. 2021R1F1A1054968]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright

References

Stam CJ, Tewarie P, Van Dellen E, van Straaten EC, Hillebrand A, Van Mieghem P. The trees and the forest: characterization of complex brain networks with minimum spanning trees. Int J Psychophysiol. 2014;92:129–38. [DOI] [PubMed]

Tewarie P, van Dellen E, Hillebrand A, Stam CJ. The minimum spanning tree: an unbiased method for brain network analysis. Neuroimage. 2015;104:177–88. [DOI] [PubMed]

Tewarie P, Schoonheim MM, Schouten DI, Polman CH, Balk LJ, Uitdehaag BM, et al. Functional brain networks: linking thalamic atrophy to clinical disability in multiple sclerosis, a multimodal fMRI and MEG study. Hum Brain Mapp. 2015;36:603–18. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

van Dellen E, Douw L, Hillebrand A, de Witt Hamer PC, Baayen JC, Heimans JJ, et al. Epilepsy surgery outcome and functional network alterations in longitudinal MEG: a minimum spanning tree analysis. Neuroimage. 2014;86:354–63. [DOI] [PubMed]

Boersma M, Smit DJ, Boomsma DI, De Geus EJ, Delemarre-van de Waal HA, Stam CJ. Growing trees in child brains: graph theoretical analysis of electroencephalography-derived minimum spanning tree in 5- and 7-year-old children reflects brain maturation. Brain Connect. 2013;3:50–60. [DOI] [PubMed]

Canario E, Chen D, Han Y, Niu H, Biswal B. Global network analysis of Alzheimer’s disease with minimum spanning trees. J Alzheimers Dis. 2022;89:571–81. [DOI] [PubMed]

Malotaux V, Dricot L, Quenon L, Lhommel R, Ivanoiu A, Hanseeuw B. Default-mode network connectivity changes during the progression toward Alzheimer’s dementia: a longitudinal functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Brain Connect. 2023;13:287–96. [DOI] [PubMed]

Wang B, Miao L, Niu Y, Cao R, Li D, Yan P, et al.; Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Abnormal functional brain networks in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease: a minimum spanning tree analysis. J Alzheimers Dis. 2018;65:1093–107. [DOI] [PubMed]

Zhang X, Liu J, Chen Y, Jin Y, Cheng J; Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Brain network construction and analysis for patients with mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease based on a highly-available nodes approach. Brain Behav. 2021;11:e02027. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

10.

Utianski RL, Caviness JN, van Straaten EC, Beach TG, Dugger BN, Shill HA, et al. Graph theory network function in Parkinson’s disease assessed with electroencephalography. Clin Neurophysiol. 2016;127:2228–36. [DOI] [PubMed]

11.

van Dellen E, Sommer IE, Bohlken MM, Tewarie P, Draaisma L, Zalesky A, et al. Minimum spanning tree analysis of the human connectome. Hum Brain Mapp. 2018;39:2455–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

12.

Simon OB, Buard I, Rojas DC, Holden SK, Kluger BM, Ghosh D. A novel approach to understanding Parkinsonian cognitive decline using minimum spanning trees, edge cutting, and magnetoencephalography. Sci Rep. 2021;11:19704. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

13.

Yan X, Ai T, Yang M, Yin H. A graph convolutional neural network for classification of building patterns using spatial vector data. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens. 2019;150:259–73. [DOI]

14.

Liu Y, Li Q, Yi D, Duan J, Zhang Q, Huang Y, et al. Topological abnormality of structural covariance network in MRI-negative frontal lobe epilepsy. Front Neurosci. 2023;17:1136110. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

15.

Tewarie P, Hillebrand A, Schoonheim MM, van Dijk BW, Geurts JJ, Barkhof F, et al. Functional brain network analysis using minimum spanning trees in Multiple Sclerosis: an MEG source-space study. Neuroimage. 2014;88:308–18. [DOI] [PubMed]

16.

Blomsma N, de Rooy B, Gerritse F, van der Spek R, Tewarie P, Hillebrand A, et al. Minimum spanning tree analysis of brain networks: a systematic review of network size effects, sensitivity for neuropsychiatric pathology, and disorder specificity. Netw Neurosci. 2022;6:301–19. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

17.

Nieboer D, Sorrentino P, Hillebrand A, Heymans MW, Twisk JWR, Stam CJ, et al. Brain network integration in patients with migraine: a magnetoencephalography study. Brain Connect. 2020;10:224–35. [DOI] [PubMed]

18.

Lauro N, D’Ambra L. L’analyse non symetrique des correspondances. In: Diday E, Jambu M, Lebart L, Pages J, Tomassone R, editors. Data analysis and informatics III. Amsterdam: North Holland; 1984. pp. 433–46. French.

19.

D’Ambra L, Lauro NC. Non symmetrical exploratory data analysis. Stat Appl. 1992;4:511–29.

20.

Krukow P, Jonak K, Karpiński R, Karakuła-Juchnowicz H. Abnormalities in hubs location and nodes centrality predict cognitive slowing and increased performance variability in first-episode schizophrenia patients. Sci Rep. 2019;9:9594. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]