RECHERCHE
Multiclass characterization of frontotemporal
dementia variants via multimodal brain
network computational inference
Raul Gonzalez-Gomez1,2*, Agustín Ibañez1,3,4,5*, and Sebastian Moguilner2,3,4,6
1Latin American Brain Health Institute (BrainLat), Universidad Adolfo Ibañez, Santiago de Chile, Chili
2Center for Social and Cognitive Neuroscience, School of Psychology, Universidad Adolfo Ibañez, Santiago de Chile, Chili
3Cognitive Neuroscience Center, Universidad de San Andres, Buenos Aires, Argentina
4Global Brain Health Institute, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Californie, Etats-Unis
5Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
6Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, Etats-Unis
*First authors.
Mots clés: Multiclass classification, FTD, FTD variants, Connectivity, Machine learning
ABSTRAIT
Characterizing a particular neurodegenerative condition against others possible diseases
remains a challenge along clinical, biomarker, and neuroscientific levels. This is the particular
case of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) variants, where their specific characterization requires
high levels of expertise and multidisciplinary teams to subtly distinguish among similar
physiopathological processes. Ici, we used a computational approach of multimodal brain
networks to address simultaneous multiclass classification of 298 sujets (one group against
all others), including five FTD variants: behavioral variant FTD, corticobasal syndrome,
nonfluent variant primary progressive aphasia, progressive supranuclear palsy, and semantic
variant primary progressive aphasia, with healthy controls. Fourteen machine learning
classifiers were trained with functional and structural connectivity metrics calculated through
different methods. Due to the large number of variables, dimensionality was reduced,
employing statistical comparisons and progressive elimination to assess feature stability under
nested cross-validation. The machine learning performance was measured through the area
under the receiver operating characteristic curves, reaching 0.81 on average, with a standard
deviation of 0.09. En outre, the contributions of demographic and cognitive data were also
assessed via multifeatured classifiers. An accurate simultaneous multiclass classification of
each FTD variant against other variants and controls was obtained based on the selection of an
optimum set of features. The classifiers incorporating the brain’s network and cognitive
assessment increased performance metrics. Multimodal classifiers evidenced specific variants’
compromise, across modalities and methods through feature importance analysis. If replicated
and validated, this approach may help to support clinical decision tools aimed to detect
specific affectations in the context of overlapping diseases.
RÉSUMÉ DE L'AUTEUR
The distinction of a neurodegenerative condition against multiple related diseases
simultaneously, with overlapping features and high levels of heterogeneity in behavioral,
clinical, and neuropathological markers, remains a challenge. Ici, we combined structural
and functional connectivity markers with diverse methods including graph theory and
un accès ouvert
journal
Citation: Gonzalez-Gomez, R., Ibañez,
UN., & Moguilner, S. (2023). Multiclass
characterization of frontotemporal
dementia variants via multimodal brain
network computational inference.
Neurosciences en réseau, 7(1), 322–350.
https://doi.org/10.1162/netn_a_00285
EST CE QUE JE:
https://doi.org/10.1162/netn_a_00285
Informations complémentaires:
https://doi.org/10.1162/netn_a_00285
Reçu: 14 Avril 2022
Accepté: 3 Octobre 2022
Intérêts concurrents: Les auteurs ont
a déclaré qu'aucun intérêt concurrent
exister.
Corresponding Authors:
Agustín Ibañez
agustin.ibanez@gbhi.org
Sebastian Moguilner
smoguilner@mgh.harvard.edu
Éditeur de manipulation:
Mikail Rubinov
droits d'auteur: © 2022
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Publié sous Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International
(CC PAR 4.0) Licence
La presse du MIT
je
D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d
F
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
je
r
e
c
t
.
m
je
t
.
/
/
t
e
d
toi
n
e
n
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d
je
F
/
/
/
/
/
7
1
3
2
2
2
0
7
2
0
5
2
n
e
n
_
un
_
0
0
2
8
5
p
d
.
t
F
b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Brain network multiclass characterization of frontotemporal dementias
cognitive markers to perform a multiclass classification of five FTD variants. An optimum set of
features was obtained through progressive feature elimination by removing redundant and
uninformative variables. Our results for the simultaneous multiclass categorization of each
FTD variant and healthy controls achieved a performance up to an area under the curve of
0.95. This approach can help develop clinical decision support tools to detect specific
affectations in the context of overlapping neurodegenerative diseases.
INTRODUCTION
Distinguishing a single neurodegenerative condition against multiple related diseases simulta-
neously remains a challenge at clinical, biomarker, and neuroscientific levels. En particulier,
the clinical diagnosis of each frontotemporal dementia (FTD) variant requires high levels of
expertise and multidisciplinary teams to distinguish among subtle phenotypes with similar
underlying physiopathological processes (Bejanin et al., 2020; Staffaroni et al., 2019;
Zetterberg et al., 2019). FTD presents with high levels of heterogeneity in behavioral, clinical,
and neuropathological markers (Boeve et al., 2022; Peet et al., 2021; Rohan et al., 2019).
En outre, biomarkers have been shown to be less sensitive to multiclass differentiation
(c'est à dire., classifying one condition against multiple other variants) across neurodegenerative
diseases (Moral-Rubio et al., 2021; Tahmasian et al., 2016). Standard positron emission
tomography (ANIMAL DE COMPAGNIE) biomarkers are relatively specific for Alzheimer’s disease (Ossenkoppele
et coll., 2021), but there are caveats when using PET to distinguish between FTD variants (Tsai
et coll., 2019). Plasma markers are promising for determining some FTD variants but are not yet
massively accessible. Enfin, the field of cognitive neuroscience has developed multiple
metrics for use with machine learning (ML) classification of neurodegenerative conditions
(Bachli et al., 2020; Ibañez et al., 2021un, 2021b; Moguilner et al., 2021), including some
FTD variants in particular (Feis et al., 2018; Moral-Rubio et al., 2021; Premi et al., 2016).
Cependant, in most cases, the classification is based on binary comparisons without assessing
the clinical classification of one condition compared to numerous other conditions. These
studies have also usually been performed with small sample comparisons and generally
consider unimodal brain features. Ainsi, a multiclass characterization across FTD variants
remains scarce despite different approaches.
Robust, scalable, and affordable biomarkers segregating not only healthy status from disease
but also among multiple variants of similar conditions could be assessed via brain network
approaches. Functional and structural connectivity based on magnetic resonance imaging
(IRM) can be relevant regarding molecular mechanisms, pathological alterations, and clinical
symptoms (Meeter et al., 2017; Pievani et al., 2011). Previous research has demonstrated its
usefulness in identifying neurodegenerative disorders (Hafkemeijer et al., 2017; Hohenfeld
et coll., 2018; Jalilianhasanpour et al., 2019) and FTD variants (Chen et al., 2020; Reyes et al.,
2018; Whitwell, 2019). Cependant, the currently available research has several limitations.
Within-subject variability is usually excluded (Finn et al., 2015; Salvatore et al., 2014). Le
results are typically biased by unsystematic research, including different modalities (c'est à dire., struc-
tural vs. functional connectivity) and methods (c'est à dire., voxel connectivity, region of interest (ROI)
analyse, graph theory). Le plus important, comprehensive frameworks integrating different con-
nectivity metrics to simultaneously distinguish between multiple FTD variants have not yet
been developed. Ainsi, a more systematic computational framework that incorporates different
connectivity modalities and methods to characterize each FTD variant against multiple other
variants and controls has not been developed.
Neurosciences en réseau
323
je
D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d
F
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
je
r
e
c
t
.
m
je
t
.
/
t
/
e
d
toi
n
e
n
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d
je
F
/
/
/
/
/
7
1
3
2
2
2
0
7
2
0
5
2
n
e
n
_
un
_
0
0
2
8
5
p
d
t
.
F
b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Brain network multiclass characterization of frontotemporal dementias
Multiclass classification:
Classifying positive class label
subjects against a negative class
comprising several categories.
eXtreme Gradient Boosting:
An optimized distributed library that
implements Gradient Boosting
machine learning algorithms
providing parallel tree boosting.
Multifeature:
Combining neuroimaging features
with cognitive features.
Recent artificial intelligence developments for multiclass classification (Churcher et al.,
2021; Gao et al., 2021; Hou et al., 2021) using ML are well suited to combine different con-
nectivity modalities and methods to test the power of multiclass classification. The ML frame-
work requires minimal assumptions and is more robust than parametric approaches regarding
data heterogeneity (Makridakis et al., 2018; Poldrack et al., 2019). Classification can be per-
formed with many variables with nonlinear interactions (Bzdok et al., 2018; Bzdok et al.,
2017). Combining ML with progressive feature elimination can identify the main predictors,
enhance classification, and provide a top assortment of features to classify outcomes
(Montavon et al., 2018; Nicholls et al., 2020). De plus, these methods can account for addi-
tional sources of heterogeneity, such as demographic and cognitive measures, in combination
with brain network features.
The general aim of this study was to optimize the number of multimodal sources of infor-
mation and to develop an effective multifeatured and multiclass classification of FTD variants.
To reduce dimensionality due to the large number of variables (c'est à dire., voxel-wise information
adding up to the scale of 106 variables), group-level statistical analyses were employed before
data-driven progressive elimination to overcome computational constraints. These statistical
approaches enabled comparing our findings with previous studies in FTD variants (Agosta
et coll., 2012; Bharti et al., 2017; Iaccarino et al., 2015; Popal et al., 2020; Tovar-Moll et al.,
2014; Upadhyay et al., 2016; Whitwell et al., 2009). De plus, by complementing the statis-
tical approaches with a subsequent ML classification, we followed hybrid methodologies
reported in the literature (Dottori et al., 2017; Fittipaldi et al., 2020; Gonzalez Campo
et coll., 2020; Kassraian-Fard et al., 2016; McMillan et al., 2012). In total, 298 subjects were
analyzed having different FTD variants, namely, behavioral variant FTD (bvFTD; n = 47),
corticobasal syndrome (CBS; n = 38), nonfluent variant primary progressive aphasia (nfvPPA;
n = 34), progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP; n = 42), and semantic variant primary progres-
sive aphasia (svPPA; n = 38), and healthy controls (HC; n = 99). The ML classifier employed
was the eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) algorithme (Kaufmann et al., 2019), ce qui était
used to classify one group against each of the remaining others. Brain network features
included two modalities (functional and structural) and three methods (voxel level or raw con-
nectivity, ROI-to-ROI, and graphs). En outre, we incorporated basic demographics (sex, âge,
years of education) and cognitive measures (disease severity and cognitive screening) into a
multifeatured classification. Three hypotheses were advanced: (1) feature optimization will
enable accurate simultaneous multiclass classification of each FTD variant relative to other
variants and controls, (2) use of cognitive measures in conjunction with connectivity will
increase classification accuracy, et (3) the model comprising all modalities and methods will
outperform the models with single methods and modalities. By testing these hypotheses, nous
aimed to assess the robustness of a multiclass computational framework for characterizing
each FTD variant simultaneously against all other variants and controls.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Sujets
All the data were obtained from LONI’s databases (https://ida.loni.usc.edu), namely, Neuroim-
aging in Frontotemporal Dementia (NIFD) et le 4 Repeat Tauopathy Neuroimaging Initia-
tive (4RTNI), both of which are part of the frontotemporal lobar degeneration neuroimaging
initiative (https://4rtni-ftldni.ini.usc.edu). Clinical diagnosis of the FTD variants was based on
current criteria (Armstrong et al., 2013; Gorno-Tempini et al., 2011; Rascovsky & Grossman,
2013; Rascovsky et al., 2011). Patients did not present any vascular, psychiatric, or other neu-
rological disorders. The inclusion of healthy subjects required confirmation of normal
Neurosciences en réseau
324
je
D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d
F
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
je
r
e
c
t
.
m
je
t
.
/
/
t
e
d
toi
n
e
n
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d
je
F
/
/
/
/
/
7
1
3
2
2
2
0
7
2
0
5
2
n
e
n
_
un
_
0
0
2
8
5
p
d
t
.
F
b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Brain network multiclass characterization of frontotemporal dementias
cognitive function, the absence of any disease, and a brain MRI free of lesions or significant
white matter changes.
In total, data from 298 subjects were analyzed, including HCs (n = 99) and individuals with
one of five FTD variants: bvFTD (n = 47), CBS (n = 38), nfvPPA (n = 34), PSP (n = 42), et
svPPA (n = 38). These variants constitute the core FTD spectrum disorders (Olney et al., 2017),
and their typical atrophy patterns (Boxer et al., 2006; Lu et al., 2013; Seeley et al., 2009;
Whitwell et al., 2010b; Whitwell et al., 2009) were confirmed via voxel-based morphometry
(Informations complémentaires, Supplementary data 1). Due to the large variability within the clinical
groupes (where some values can represent outliers) and the nonnormal data distribution of
some variables, the median and median absolute deviation (Wilcox, 2017) were used to
analyze demographic and cognitive characteristics (Tableau 1). En plus, to solve the pro-
nounced between-group variability (Informations complémentaires, Supplementary data 2), it was
necessary to match the clinical groups in age, sex, and education using two subsamples of
the HCs, both with n = 50 (Informations complémentaires, Supplementary data 3): the first subsample
(HCsub1) was matched with bvFTD and svPPA patients, and the second subsample (HCsub2)
was matched with CBS, nfvPPA, and PSP patients. Based on the clinical dementia rating
(CDR), bvFTD and svPPA patients were in the mild stage of the disease (CDR = 1), alors que
those with the other variants were in the early disease stage (CDR = 0.5) (see Table 1). Cependant,
all variants were comparable regarding their cognitive status, as assessed by the Mini-Mental
State Examination (MMSE). En plus, all variant groups were significantly different from
the HC group on the CDR and MMSE scores (Tableau 1; see details in Supporting Information,
Supplementary data 2). Among the variant groups, analysis of disease severity and cognitive
measures presented statistically significant differences only between the bvFTD and nfvPPA
groups in the CDR index.
Groupe
HCtotal
HCsub1
HCsub2
bvFTD
CBS
nfvPPA
PSP
svPPA
Shapiro–Wilk normality test
Tableau 1. Demography, disease severity, and cognitive status
n
99
50
50
47
38
34
42
38
Age
66.0 (4.45)
Sex (% of females)
54.5
Éducation
18.0 (2.97) [4]
CDR
0 (0.0) [31]
MMSE
30.0 (0)
63.0 (5.19)
68.0 (5.93)
62.0 (5.93)
67.0 (8.15)
69.5 (8.90)
68.5 (6.67)
64.0 (7.41)
p = 0.264
46
58
38.3
52.6
52.9
50
44.7
—
16.0 (1.48) [1]
0 (0.0) [31]
29.0 (1.48)
17.0 (1.48) [2]
0 (0.0) [11]
29.5 (0.74)
15.5 (3.71)
1 (0.74)
25.0 (4.45)
16.0 (2.97) [2]
0.5 (0.37) [2]
25.0 (4.45) [4]
16.0 (2.97)
0.5 (0.0) [1]
26.0 (2.97)
16.0 (2.97) [2]
0.5 (0.74) [3]
26.0 (2.97) [4]
16.0 (2.97) [1]
1.0 (0.37)
24.5 (3.71) [1]
p < 0.001 p < 0.001 p < 0.001 Significant between-group comparisons a, b, c a, d d Note. Descriptive statistics are presented as the median (median absolute deviation) [missing values]. The HCsub1 subsample is demographically matched with the bvFTD and svPPA groups, and the HCsub2 subsample is matched with the CBS, nfvPPA, and PSP variant groups. Group median comparisons were based on a 5,000 permutations test to deal with tied values (Wilcox, 2017); see details in Supporting Information Table S1. The p values were set at 0.05 and adjusted by the Bonferroni method. a: bvFTD vs. nfvPPA; b: bvFTD vs. PSP; c: PSP vs. svPPA; d: all variant groups presented statistically significant differences to the HC group. bvFTD = behavioral variant of FTD; CBS = corticobasal syndrome; CDR = Clinical Dementia Rating; HC = healthy controls; MMSE = Mini-Mental State Exam; nfvPPA = nonfluent variant primary progressive aphasia; PSP = progressive supranuclear palsy; svPPA = semantic variant primary progressive aphasia. Network Neuroscience 325 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / / t e d u n e n a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / / 7 1 3 2 2 2 0 7 2 0 5 2 n e n _ a _ 0 0 2 8 5 p d . t f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Brain network multiclass characterization of frontotemporal dementias MRI: Analysis All MRI images were acquired from a 3.0 Tesla MR device following the protocols of the fron- totemporal lobar degeneration neuroimaging initiative between 2008 and 2016. Although two different scanners were used (Siemens model Trio; scanner 1 = 285 subjects, 95.6 %; and scanner 2 = 13 subjects, 4.4 %), previous studies with this dataset have pointed out that this variability is negligible (Dickerson et al., 2008; Fox et al., 2012; Melzer et al., 2020; Noble et al., 2017a; Noble et al., 2017b; Zhou et al., 2018). In addition, only images with the same acquisition parameters for both scanners were selected to avoid additional sources of variabil- ity (Han et al., 2006; Mueller et al., 2011). Finally, additional procedures were performed to assess the potential effects of the scanner variability (see below). To enable a greater sample size, only cross-sectional data were included. We detail the study goal and the pipeline in Figure 1. Resting-state fMRI (rs-fMRI): Connectivity matrices. Three approaches were used to analyze the functional connectivity pattern in each variant group. First, connectivity was analyzed at the voxel level. We refer to this approach as raw connectivity, given that it is the most straightfor- ward method to obtain functional connectivity maps (Nieto-Castanon, 2020). Second, at the ROI level, we analyzed the linear correlation between regions (ROI-to-ROI) because this is the Raw connectivity: Brain connectivity analyzed at the voxel’s BOLD time series level in the case of functional connectivity, and at the tract level for structural connectivity. l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / / t e d u n e n a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / / 7 1 3 2 2 2 0 7 2 0 5 2 n e n _ a _ 0 0 2 8 5 p d . t f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Figure 1. Goal and pipeline. (A) Graphic representation of multiclass classification where each group is differentiated from the other groups. In this case, there are six comparisons (k = 6). (B) Pipeline representation. I: MRI and the sequences employed. II: Preprocessing steps depended on the sequence type. III: Connectivity analysis included two modalities (functional and structural) and three methods (raw, ROI-to-ROI, and graph connectivity). IV: XGBoost algorithms were used for multiclass classification of groups, using both modalities and three methods of connectivity, with and without demographic and cognitive measures. bvFTD = behavioral variant of FTD; CBS = cor- ticobasal syndrome; DWI = diffusion-weighted images; HC = healthy control; nfvPPA = nonfluent variant primary progressive aphasia; PSP = progressive supranuclear palsy; rs-fMRI; resting-state fMRI; svPPA = semantic variant primary progressive aphasia. Network Neuroscience 326 Brain network multiclass characterization of frontotemporal dementias gold standard for obtaining averaged voxel-wise associations (Fox & Raichle, 2007; Ibañez et al., 2021a, 2021b; Nieto-Castanon, 2020). Third, we employed graph connectivity mea- sures to characterize brain network organization in a more comprehensive manner (Bressler & Menon, 2010; Rubinov & Sporns, 2010; Sporns, 2018). The three approaches were imple- mented to compare each variant with its respective HC subsample and between other variants based on t statistics. The multiple comparison problem was accounted for by using a threshold-free cluster enhancement (TFCE) method (Chen et al., 2018; Smith & Nichols, 2009), except for the graph measures, where we used the false discovery rate (FDR) method with p < 0.05. The rs-fMRI signals were obtained from all subjects with an echo-planar pulse sequence and the following parameters: TR = 2,000 ms, TE = 27 ms, flip angle = 80 degrees, voxel size = 3 mm3, number of slices = 240. The preprocessing and functional connectivity analysis were implemented with the CONN 20.b toolbox (Whitfield-Gabrieli & Nieto-Castanon, 2012) running in SPM12 on MATLAB R2018b. For the functional images, the first five volumes were removed. The pipeline for preprocessing the images was set as the default of the CONN toolbox: (1) subject-motion estimation and correction, (2) automatic translations of the center to the (0, 0, 0) coordinates, (3) slice timing correction, (4) outlier detection (global signal z-value thresh- old = 5, subject-motion mm threshold = 0.9), (5) direct segmentation and normalization to Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) space with a resolution of 3 mm3, (6) automatic trans- lations of the center to the (0, 0, 0) coordinates of structural images, (7) direct segmentation and normalization to MNI of structural images (resolution of 1 mm3), (8) smoothing with a Gaussian kernel (8 mm × 8 mm × 8 mm), (9) denoising (linear regression of confounding effects of white matter, cerebrospinal fluid, realignment, and scrubbing), and (10) band-pass filter (0.001–0.09 Hz). TFCE’s corrections were employed for raw and ROI-to-ROI connectivity because they can assess statistical significance at the voxel and ROI level without requiring one to set an arbi- trary threshold, thus providing unbiased results (Chen et al., 2018; Smith & Nichols, 2009). Additionally, TFCE is more sensitive to both focal and peripheral effects than classical correc- tion methods, reaching the best balance between family-wise error (FWE) rates and replicabil- ity (Chen et al., 2018). We calculated TFCE through 1,000 permutations and a significance level of p < 0.05 (FEW-corrected). Since the aggregation of areas within clusters (like in the case of the TFCE method) can interfere with the calculation of graph theory metrics (Bullmore & Sporns, 2009; Sporns, 2010), we employed the FDR correction which is the method of choice to correct for the multiple comparisons problem when using those measures (Agosta et al., 2014; Khazaee et al., 2015). At the voxel level, the raw functional connectivity analysis included four measures to char- acterize the brain’s complexity (Mohanty et al., 2020). First, we employed global correlation, which represents the average of the correlation coefficient between each voxel and all other voxels in the brain (Nieto-Castanon, 2020). Second, we employed local correlation, which is defined as the average of the correlation coefficients of every voxel and their neighboring vox- els in a kernel size of 30 mm (Deshpande et al., 2009). Additionally, two measures that are nonscale invariant were implemented to analyze BOLD signal power within a frequency win- dow of interest (0.00–0.09 Hz). First, we used the amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations, considering the root-mean-square of the time series of each voxel after low- or band-pass filtering (Yang et al., 2007). Second, we used the fractional amplitude of low-frequency fluc- tuations to represent the power of the frequency band of interest (0.001–0.09 Hz) compared to the entire frequency spectrum. This measure represents the ratio of the root-mean-square of the BOLD signal at each voxel after vs. before the filtering (Zou et al., 2008). Network Neuroscience 327 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . t / / e d u n e n a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / / 7 1 3 2 2 2 0 7 2 0 5 2 n e n _ a _ 0 0 2 8 5 p d . t f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Brain network multiclass characterization of frontotemporal dementias At the ROI level, we extracted the mean time course of the BOLD signal of each one of the 116 regions according to the automated anatomical labeling (AAL) atlas (Tzourio-Mazoyer et al., 2002). An ROI-to-ROI connectivity matrix for each subject was calculated for all regions using the Fisher-transformed bivariate correlation coefficient between every pair of ROI time series (Nieto-Castanon, 2020). The TFCE clustering was based on a hierarchical algorithm method, where ROIs with similar effect patterns were grouped to achieve more meaningful results (Nieto-Castanon, 2020). Regarding graph measures, we included the positive values of the ROI-to-ROI connectivity matrices only, with a threshold of 0.3, to avoid small effect sizes (Cohen, 1988, 1992; Rosenthal, 1996). Thus, the AAL’s regions were considered the nodes, and the linear correlations greater than 0.3 the edges. The matrices obtained were used as undirected weighted inputs for the calculation of graph metrics in the brain connectivity toolbox (https://www.brain-connectivity-toolbox.net). We used the approach used in Sedeño et al. (2017) by employing weighted graph measures, given that the information about the connection strength is preserved (van Wijk et al., 2010). Following previous standards in this field (Rubinov & Sporns, 2010), seven graph connectivity metrics were analyzed for each ROI: (1) global efficiency: the average of inverse-shortest path (the minimum number of edges that must be traversed to go from one node to another) between this node and all other nodes in the network (Nieto-Castanon, 2020); (2) local efficiency: global efficiency computed on the neigh- borhood of the node (Nieto-Castanon, 2020); (3) degree: number of links connected to the node (Bullmore & Sporns, 2009); (4) strength: the sum of the weights of links connected to the node (Rubinov & Sporns, 2010); (5) clustering coefficient: fraction of node’s neighbors that are neighbors of each other (Bassett & Bullmore, 2006); (6) betweenness centrality: the fraction of all shortest paths in the network that contain a given node (Rubinov & Sporns, 2010). Diffusion-weighted images (DWI). Structural connectivity was analyzed in a similar way to functional connectivity, using the three previous methods to characterize connectivity changes at different levels. The DWI sequences were acquired for 264 of the subjects, including 77 HCs (HCsub1 = 43, HCsub2 = 41), 45 with bvFTD, 35 with CBS, 34 with nfvPPA, 37 with PSP, and 36 with svPPA. As in the total sample, no sociodemographic differences were observed (Supporting Information, Supplementary data 3). The group comparison methods for the three DWI approaches were the same as those used for the functional data. The mul- tiple comparisons problem for the raw and graph measures of connectivity was corrected by the FDR method (p < 0.05). The connections between ROIs were corrected by the TFCE method using 1,000 permutations with p < 0.05 (FWE-corrected). All DWI were acquired with an echo-planar sequence in two dimensions and 64 diffusion sampling directions, with the following parameters: TR = 7,400 ms, TE = 86 ms, flip angle = 180 degrees, in-plane resolution = 2.2 mm, slice thickness = 2.2 mm, and b-value = 2,000 s/mm2. The MRIToolkit toolbox (https://github.com/delucaal/MRIToolkit), running on Matlab R2018b was used for preprocessing, where the pipeline includes denoising based on principal components analysis (Veraart, Fieremans, & Novikov, 2016) and corrections for distortions due to head motion and eddy currents. The analysis was implemented with DSI Studio (version 2021, Jul 12, https://dsi-studio.labsolver.org). The quality of the DWIs was confirmed by an average of 0.89 (SD = 0.01) in the mean Pearson correlation coefficient of the “neighboring” DWI (Yeh et al., 2019b). To obtain the spin distribution function (Yeh et al., 2010), diffusion data were reconstructed in the MNI space using q-space diffeomorphic recon- struction (Yeh & Tseng, 2011) with a length ratio of 1.25 and a resolution of 2 mm isotropic. We used a deterministic fiber tracking algorithm (Yeh et al., 2013), which has been shown to accomplish 92% valid connections over an average of 54% of other algorithms (Maier-Hein et al., 2017). Network Neuroscience 328 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / t / e d u n e n a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / / 7 1 3 2 2 2 0 7 2 0 5 2 n e n _ a _ 0 0 2 8 5 p d . t f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Brain network multiclass characterization of frontotemporal dementias The multiple comparison problem was tackled using a TFCE method (Chen et al., 2018; Smith & Nichols, 2009), except for the graph measures, in which we used the discovery rate (FDR) method with p < 0.05. The reasons for selecting these methods were the same as with functional connectivity, but for raw structural connectivity, we used the FDR correction. The FDR method is the gold standard for tackling the multiple comparisons problem in tracto- graphy (Whitwell et al., 2010a; Yeh et al., 2019b; Zhang et al., 2013) because it enables a substantial improvement of statistical power for comparing individuals averaging tracts (Schwartzman et al., 2008). Moreover, tract-crossing fibers (Tournier, 2010) can affect cluster- ing measures, thus discouraging the use of TFCE corrections. First, we initialized the analysis of raw structural connectivity taking into account all the tracts included in the structural connectome (Yeh et al., 2018). An automatic fiber tracking algorithm was used to calculate seven connectivity metrics for the subject’s tracts. The seeding region was placed at the track regions of the tractography atlas (Yeh et al., 2018) with a track-to-voxel ratio of 2. The anisotropy threshold, angular threshold, and step size were randomly selected, the last two between 15–90 degrees and 0.5–1.5 voxels, respectively (Yeh et al., 2018). Tracks with a length shorter than 30 or longer than 200 mm were discarded (Yeh et al., 2019a). Additionally, topology- informed pruning (Yeh et al., 2019a) was applied with 32 iterations to remove false connections. Seven raw connectivity measures were obtained for every tract using two models. On the one hand, we obtained four measures from the classical tensor model (Basser et al., 1994a, 1994b) with diffusion tractography image: (1) fractional anisotropy, degree of anisotropy of the diffusion process; (2) axial diffusivity: quantifies diffusivity along the principal axis of the tensor; (3) radial diffusivity: explains the diffusivity perpendicular to the principal axis of the tensor; and (4) mean diffusivity: characterizes the overall mean squared displacement of the water molecules (for more details on tensor-based measures calculations, see Hecke et al., 2016). On the other hand, from the q-space model (Callaghan, 1994) and the generalized q-sampling imaging method (Yeh et al., 2010, 2013), the following measures were obtained: (5) the normalized quantitative anisotropy: evaluates the most prominent fiber orientation, in a scaled way so that the maximum of each subject is one (Yeh et al., 2010, 2013); (6) the isotropic diffusion component derive: represents the non-directional restricted diffusion (Yeh et al., 2010, 2013); and (7) the restricted diffusion imaging: quantifies the density of restricted diffusion (Yeh et al., 2017). Second, an ROI-to-ROI structural connectivity analysis was used to assess the integrity of tracts between gray matter regions. To this end, the fractional anisotropy associations among the 116 ROI of the AAL atlas were calculated (Tzourio-Mazoyer et al., 2002). A total of 10,000 seeds were placed in the whole brain (Yeh et al., 2010, 2013). The fractional anisotropy threshold was set at 0.2 for the elimination of voxels containing gray matter (Mori & van Zijl, 2002; Oishi et al., 2008). This value was chosen based on the existing literature on FTD structural connectivity character- ization (Chen et al., 2020; Möller et al., 2015; Sheelakumari et al., 2020). Additionally, the angular threshold and step size were randomly selected from 15 to 90 degrees and 0.5 to 1.5 voxels, respectively (Yeh et al., 2018). The tracts that appeared repeatedly at a distance smaller than 1 mm, shorter than 30 mm, or longer than 200 mm were discarded (Yeh et al., 2019a, 2019b). Finally, one connectivity matrix was calculated for every subject based on the fractional anisotropy mean of the tracts that ended in every area of the 116 AAL’s ROIs. Furthermore, these matrices were used for the calculation of graph metrics, as explained for functional data. Machine Learning We employed ML to compare classification performance of functional and structural connec- tivity data alone or in combination with demographic and cognitive measures. With this aim, Network Neuroscience 329 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / / t e d u n e n a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / / 7 1 3 2 2 2 0 7 2 0 5 2 n e n _ a _ 0 0 2 8 5 p d . t f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Brain network multiclass characterization of frontotemporal dementias Multimodal: Combining several neuroimaging methods. we evaluated the individual contributions of the three methods of connectivity in the two modalities (functional and structural) to characterize the pathological groups. Each algorithm was executed two times, with connectivity data alone and with the demographic and cogni- tive features. Additionally, we created one model combining all methods and modalities. In total, 14 data-driven models were used for the classification of one class relative to the remain- ing subjects, following best practices in ML (Müller & Guido, 2016; Poldrack et al., 2019). Feature engineering and selection. The total number of multimodal features was on the order of 106, voxel-wise variables entailing extensive computational time and memory requirements (Cohen et al., 2017; Huys et al., 2016). Using the full set of features might also induce adap- tation of ML algorithms to the particularities of a specific dataset (overfitting), resulting in poor generalizability (Müller & Guido, 2016). Following previous procedures, we reduced dimen- sionality with group-level statistical analysis, also called filter method (Kassraian-Fard et al., 2016). Unlike other methods for dimensionality reduction, such as principal component anal- ysis, this approach allows a more direct interpretation of the results (Huys et al., 2016; Pereira et al., 2009). In addition, filter methods are computationally inexpensive and do not take clas- sifier performance into consideration (Kassraian-Fard et al., 2016). Moreover, our group-level statistical findings can be compared with previous research (Agosta et al., 2012; Bharti et al., 2017; Iaccarino et al., 2015; Popal et al., 2020; Tovar-Moll et al., 2014; Upadhyay et al., 2016; Whitwell et al., 2009). This hybrid approach has been employed in previous studies (Dottori et al., 2017; Fittipaldi et al., 2020; Gonzalez Campo et al., 2020; Kassraian-Fard et al., 2016; McMillan et al., 2012). Each possible group comparison was calculated for each modality and method, with a sta- tistical power threshold of 0.80 for detecting medium effect sizes, as recommended (Cohen, 1988); see Supporting Information, Supplementary data 2 for details. The significant results from these comparisons were used as inputs for the ML algorithms in our training sample. In the case of raw functional connectivity, the results were averaged for significant clusters (with a size greater than 50 voxels) across the individual maps of connectivity. To extract the most relevant features, we performed a progressive feature elimination approach in the training set (80% of the total sample, further details below) to select the optimum set of features after stabilization (Donnelly-Kehoe et al., 2018) using a k-fold scheme (with k = 5) with nested training and validation. At each iteration, the Gini scores were used to eliminate the features of the lowest importance, while evaluating feature stability on each nested fold. The variability of the feature ranking in the importance list was evaluated across nested k-folds. To this end, we assessed if the confidence interval’s right tail of each feature was ranked in the same way as the feature mean (see Supporting Information, Supplementary data 4 for analysis output details). Finally, we kept the N first features in the ranking, where N is the optimal number of features such that using more than N features fails to improve classifier performance. Classification models. Based on the selected features, we used the XGBoost algorithm (Kaufmann et al., 2019) to classify the different clinical groups. The XGBoost algorithm is a gradient boosting machine implementation that provides parallel computation tree boosting, enabling fast and accurate predictions and advanced regularization techniques to avoid overfitting (Torlay et al., 2017). This algorithm has proven successful in several diagnostic applications (Behravan et al., 2018; Torlay et al., 2017; Zheng et al., 2017). Gradient boosting machine is based on the gradient boosting technique, in which ensembles of decision trees iteratively attempt to correct the classification errors of their predecessors by minimizing a loss function (i.e., a function representing the difference between the estimated and true values) pointing in the negative gradient direction (Mason et al., 1999). When compared to other Network Neuroscience 330 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / / t e d u n e n a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / / 7 1 3 2 2 2 0 7 2 0 5 2 n e n _ a _ 0 0 2 8 5 p d . t f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Brain network multiclass characterization of frontotemporal dementias GBM algorithms, XGBoost provides regularized boosting, helping to reduce overfitting with more generalizable results (Torlay et al., 2017; Xuan et al., 2019). Following best practices in ML (Müller & Guido, 2016; Poldrack et al., 2019), we used 80% of the sample for training and validation and 20% of the sample for testing. Within the training set, we performed k-fold cross-validation (with k = 5 nonoverlapping folds) in alternating nested training sets and validation sets to tune hyperparameters. The 20% left was an indepen- dent test set to perform an unbiased and accurate performance estimation. XGBoost has several hyperparameters, including the number of subtrees to retain, maximum tree depth, learning rate, minimum loss reduction required to further partition a leaf node, maximum num- ber of leaves, and regularization weights (Wade, 2020). To choose the best hyperparameter combination, we used Bayesian optimization, an approach with demonstrated applicability to different problem settings (Feurer & Hutter, 2019; Zeng & Luo, 2017). This is an iterative algorithm with two key components: a probabilistic surrogate model and an acquisition func- tion to decide which point to evaluate next. At each step, a new point in the hyperparameter space to explore is selected to be the maximum of an activation function of the prior knowl- edge and the uncertainty. As this optimization progresses, the chances of finding a better solution increase. Compared to other techniques, such as grid search (which is undermined by issues of dimensionality) or random search (where each guess is independent of the previous run), the Bayesian optimization algorithm is fast to compute, enabling a thorough optimization of the hyperparameters. The performance of the classifiers was evaluated through receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (Fawcett, 2006), in which the sensitivity (true positive rate) and (1 − specificity) (i.e., false-positive rate) were used as the Y and X axes, respectively. These results were con- densed using the area under the ROC curve (AUC) value, representing the probability that a randomly picked subject from the correct group will have a higher score according to the classifier than a randomly picked subject from the incorrect group (Müller & Guido, 2016). The pipeline divided the original dataset into six binary datasets, where the positive class in each of these datasets corresponded to the group of interest, and the negative class was com- posed of all the other groups. Then, for each dataset, performance was evaluated through the microaverage AUC by averaging classification performance with respect to the labels and samples, thus taking into account the imbalance between classes and producing an unbiased performance metric (Koyejo et al., 2015). RESULTS Functional Connectivity Depending on the method used, each variant group exhibited heterogeneous functional network alterations. The patients with bvFTD presented multiple changes in their frontal networks, as detected by raw (Figure 2), ROI-to-ROI (Figure 3A), and graph (Figure 4A) con- nectivity measures. Additionally, clusters in the insula and anterior temporal area were signif- icantly disconnected from distant areas but not from nearby voxels (Figure 2). Additionally, temporal regions (ROI-to-ROI) were less connected (Figure 3A), and cerebellar areas presented improved network organization (Figure 4A). Raw functional connectivity in the CBS group showed an increase with the left prefrontal areas (Figure 2). In contrast, the ROI-to-ROI method detected impaired connectivity of the cerebellum with the frontal regions (Figure 3A), while efficiency and strength graph properties of the orbitofrontal areas and cerebellum increased (Figure 4A). In the nfvPPA group, there was evidence of a decrease in the global correlation between the insula and anterior temporal region in the left hemisphere (Figure 2). Based on the Microaverage AUC: Micro-average metrics aggregate the contributions of all classes to compute the average AUC metric. This method is preferred when class imbalance is present. Network Neuroscience 331 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / / t e d u n e n a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / / 7 1 3 2 2 2 0 7 2 0 5 2 n e n _ a _ 0 0 2 8 5 p d t . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Brain network multiclass characterization of frontotemporal dementias Figure 2. Raw functional connectivity in five frontotemporal dementia variants. Each variant group was compared to a subsample of the healthy control group matched for sex, age, and years of education. Connectivity metrics were calculated at the voxel level and corrected by TFCE, pFEW < 0.05, where clusters represent statistically significant differences with respect to the healthy con- trols. ALFF = amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations; bvFTD = behavioral variant; CBS = cortico- basal syndrome; fALFF = fractional amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations; L = left; nfvPPA = progressive nonfluent aphasia; PSP = progressive supranuclear palsy; R = right; svPPA = semantic variant of FTD; TFCE = threshold-free cluster enhancement. ROI-level analysis, the same areas showed decreased connectivity with occipital and parietal regions (Figure 3A). The graph connectivity analysis showed a diminution of the global effi- ciency and strength values in the left Heschl gyrus and left superior temporal regions (ROI), with the same metrics increasing in the cerebellum (Figure 4A). Regarding the PSP group, raw functional connectivity showed alterations in the left insula, cerebellum, and inferior and superior temporal gyri (Figure 2 and Supporting Information, Supplementary data 5). ROI-to- ROI connectivity analysis showed increased cerebellar connections with the occipital lobe (Figure 3A). Graph analyses demonstrated better network organization in the bilateral occipital ROIs and a deterioration of network organization in the insula, Heschl’s area, and temporal superior area in the left hemisphere (Figure 4A). Regarding the svPPA patients, raw functional connectivity analyses evidenced impaired connectivity of the bilateral anterior temporal gyri and the insula (Figure 2). The ROI-to-ROI connectivity showed decreases in multiple connec- tions (intratemporal, tempo-occipital, tempo-central, and fronto-subcortical connections; see Figure 3A). Moreover, the graph connectivity analysis showed increases mainly in global effi- ciency, degree, and strength metrics in the bilateral frontal, superior, orbital, and cerebellar ROIs (Figure 4A). Structural Connectivity Similar to functional connectivity, structural networks evidenced variable results depending on the method employed. The patients with bvFTD showed several altered tracts based on the raw structural connectivity analysis (Figure 5). Similar findings were obtained in the ROI-to- ROI connectivity analysis (Figure 3B), indicating impairments primarily in the fronto-frontal connections but also in the fronto-cerebellar and fronto-central connections. Similarly, all Network Neuroscience 332 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . t / / e d u n e n a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / / 7 1 3 2 2 2 0 7 2 0 5 2 n e n _ a _ 0 0 2 8 5 p d t . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Brain network multiclass characterization of frontotemporal dementias l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . t / / e d u n e n a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / / 7 1 3 2 2 2 0 7 2 0 5 2 n e n _ a _ 0 0 2 8 5 p d . t f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Figure 3. ROI-to-ROI connectivity in five variants of frontotemporal dementia. Functional connectivity (A) employing linear correlation among ROIs, while structural connectivity (B) using fractional anisotropy means of the tracts that end in each ROI. Each variant group was compared with a subsample of the HC group matched for sex, age, and years of education based on the 116 ROIs in the AAL atlas. Multiple comparisons were corrected by TFCE, pFEW < 0.05, where ROIs with similar effect patterns were grouped through a hierarchical algorithm method to achieve more meaningful results. Ant = anterior; Amyg = amygdala; bvFTD = behavioral variant; CBS = corticobasal syndrome; Cereb = cerebellum; Cing = Cingulum; Fr = frontal; Hpp = hippocampus; Inf = inferior; L = left; M = medial; Mid = middle; nfvPPA = progressive nonfluent aphasia; Occ = occipital; Op = opercular; Oper = operculum; Or = orbital; Pol M = middle pole; Pol S = superior pole; Post = posterior; PSP = progressive supranuclear palsy; R = right; Sup = superior; Supramarg = supramarginal; Supp = supplementary; svPPA = semantic variant of FTD; TFCE = threshold-free cluster enhancement; Temp = temporal; Tri = triangularis; Ver = vermis. Network Neuroscience 333 Brain network multiclass characterization of frontotemporal dementias l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / t / e d u n e n a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / / 7 1 3 2 2 2 0 7 2 0 5 2 n e n _ a _ 0 0 2 8 5 p d t . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Figure 4. Graph connectivity in five variants of frontotemporal dementia. The 116 ROIs in the AAL atlas were considered the nodes. The edges of functional connectivity (A) were linear correlation coefficients greater than 0.3, and those of structural connectivity (B) were the fractional anisot- ropy means of the tracts that ended in every ROI with a threshold of 0.2. Each variant group was compared with a subsample of the healthy control group matched for sex, age, and years of education based on the 116 ROIs in the AAL atlas. Multiple comparisons were corrected by FDR. Ant = anterior; BC = betweenness centrality; bvFTD = behavioral variant; CBS = corticobasal syndrome; CC = clustering coefficient; Cereb = cerebellum; Cing = cingulum; D = degree; Fr = frontal; GL = global efficiency; Hpp = hippocampus; Inf = inferior; L = left; LE = local efficiency; Med = medial; Mid = middle; nfvPPA = progressive nonfluent aphasia; Op = opercular; Oper = operculum; Orb = orbital; PSP = progressive supranuclear palsy; R = right; svPPA = semantic variant of FTD; Str = strength; Sup = superior; Supp = supplementary; Temp = temporal; Tri = triangularis. Network Neuroscience 334 Brain network multiclass characterization of frontotemporal dementias Figure 5. Raw structural connectivity in five frontotemporal dementia variants. Each variant group was compared to a subsample of the healthy control group matched for sex, age, and years of education. Connectivity was analyzed with a determinist tractography method, and multiple comparisons were controlled for by FDR (pFDR < 0.05). The results showed tracts significantly different from healthy controls. AD = axial diffusivity; bvFTD = behavioral variant; CBS = corticobasal syndrome; FA = fractional anisotropy; ISO = isotropic diffusion com- ponent derived; L = left; MD = mean diffusivity; NQA = normalized quantitative anisotropy; nfvPPA = progressive nonfluent aphasia; PSP = progressive supranuclear palsy; R = right; RD = radial diffusivity; RDI = restricted diffusion imaging; svPPA = semantic variant of FTD. frontal ROIs presented decreased network graph organization (Figure 4B). The CBS group had a similar pattern to the bvFTD group in raw structural connectivity (Figure 5) but with more extended changes across the cerebellar connections (Supporting Information, Supplementary data 5). The ROI-to-ROI connectivity analysis showed decreases in the precentral and frontal superior regions in the right hemisphere (Figure 3B). The analysis of the graph metrics pre- sented diminished efficiency, degree, and strength metrics in the frontal and temporal regions (Figure 4B). In the nfvPPA group, reduced raw structural connectivity was observed in the cor- pus callosum, frontal aslant tract, superior longitudinal fasciculus, anterior thalamic radiations, superior thalamic radiations, and cerebellar connections (Figure 5 and Supporting Information, Supplementary data 5). ROI-to-ROI connectivity presented decreases between the left frontal and right central areas and between the superior and middle right frontal ROIs (Figure 3B). These ROIs showed reduced strength, while local efficiency and the clustering coefficient decreased in the left precentral and right mid temporal ROIs, respectively (Figure 4B). The patients with PSP presented a similar pattern to those with bvFTD in raw structural connectivity (Figure 5), with numerous additional alterations in the cerebellar connections (Supporting Information, Supplementary data 5). Additionally, this group presented disconnections between the right precentral ROI to frontal regions (Figure 3B). The network organization in the frontal, central, and temporal ROIs was reduced, mainly regarding efficiency and strength (Figure 4B). In the svPPA group, the three methods mainly evidenced a loss of connectivity of the temporal lobes with the rest of the brain. All raw connectivity indices showed significant differences in the uncinated fasciculus and cingulum parahippocampal tract (Figure 5 and Supporting Information, Supplementary data 5). ROI-to-ROI connectivity analyses (Figure 3B) detected a decrease in connectivity of the intrafrontal and intratemporal areas in the right hemisphere (Figure 3B). Global efficiency, degree, and strength values increased in the bilat- eral thalamic, left insular, and right hippocampal ROIs but decreased in the frontal and cere- bellar regions (Figure 4B). Network Neuroscience 335 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . t / / e d u n e n a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / / 7 1 3 2 2 2 0 7 2 0 5 2 n e n _ a _ 0 0 2 8 5 p d . t f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Brain network multiclass characterization of frontotemporal dementias Machine Learning Multiclass classification. The multiclass classification among groups based on connectivity data from the raw functional method achieved an AUC of 0.92 (Figure 6A). The model with mul- timodal data, including raw functional connectivity and cognitive features, reached the high- est classification performance (AUC = 0.95) (Figure 6C). The top-ranked features in both models included the amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations and global and local correlation metrics. Furthermore, in the multimodal approach, the MMSE score was the fourth ranked in the feature importance list (Figure 6B). The models with ROI-to-ROI functional connectivity features yielded AUCs of 0.75 and 0.80 when the connectivity data were analyzed individu- ally (Figure 6D) or with the multimodal approach (Figure 6F), respectively. The top features in these models are shown in Figure 6E, in which the MMSE score ranked third in the multimodal model. The model with functional graph connectivity data only yielded an AUC of 0.63 (Figure 6G), a value that was increased in its multimodal counterpart to 0.89 (Figure 6I). Finally, Figure 6H shows the selected features for the graph models and their relative feature l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / t / e d u n e n a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / / 7 1 3 2 2 2 0 7 2 0 5 2 n e n _ a _ 0 0 2 8 5 p d . t f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Figure 6. XGBoost classifier performance with functional connectivity data for the multiclass classifications of five variants of FTD and HCs. The rows correspond to the three methods used for the analyses of functional connectivity: raw, ROI-to-ROI, and graph connectivity. The first column corresponds to the performance of models with only connectivity data from the three methods (A, D, and G). The second column presents the feature importance for both models corresponding to the same method (B, E, and H). The third column shows the multifeatured approach where connectivity data were used along with demographic and cognitive variables (C, F, and I). Additional details on classification performance are provided in Supporting Information, Supplementary data 4. ALFF: amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations; Ant = anterior; AUC = area under the ROC curve; bvFTD = behavioral variant; CBS = corticobasal syndrome; CC = clustering coefficient; Cereb = cerebellum; Cing = cingulum; cl = cluster; D = degree; Fr = frontal; GCOR = global correlation; GL = global efficiency; HC = healthy controls; Hipp; hippocampus; Inf = inferior; L = left; LCOR = local correlation; LE = local efficiency; nfvPPA = progressive nonfluent aphasia; Med = medial; Mid = middle; MMSE = Mini-Mental State Examination; Occ = occipital; Oper = operculum; Orb = orbital; PSP = progressive supranuclear palsy; R = right; Rolan = rolandic; Sup = superior; svPPA = semantic variant of FTD; Str = strength; Temp = temporal. Network Neuroscience 336 Brain network multiclass characterization of frontotemporal dementias importance, where the MMSE score was the most important feature in this multimodal approach. The model with raw structural data achieved an AUC of 0.84 (Figure 7A), while its multi- modal counterpart reached an AUC of 0.85 (Figure 7C). The top features included in these models and their importance are shown in Figure 7B. The MMSE score feature ranked as one of the top features in the multimodal model. In the case of the model with ROI-to-ROI structural connectivity only, an AUC performance of 0.70 was obtained (Figure 7D), a value that increased to 0.80 when incorporating multimodal features (Figure 7F). The feature impor- tance is shown in Figure 7E, where the MMSE score was the second most important feature in the multimodal version. The models with graph connectivity data presented AUC values of 0.73 and 0.83 using connectivity data only (Figure 7G) and when combined with multimodal data (Figure 7I), respectively. The top features of these models are presented in Figure 7H, where the MMSE score was the most relevant feature in this multimodal approach. Finally, the combination of all connectivity data from both modalities and the three methods for multiclass classification reached an AUC of 0.80 (Figure 8A). When incorporating l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . t / / e d u n e n a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / / 7 1 3 2 2 2 0 7 2 0 5 2 n e n _ a _ 0 0 2 8 5 p d . t f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Figure 7. XGBoost classifier performance with structural connectivity data for the multiclass classifications of five variants of FTD and HCs. The rows correspond to the three methods used for the analyses of functional connectivity: raw, ROI-to-ROI, and graph connectivity. The first column corresponds to the performance of models with connectivity data only from the three methods (A, D, and G). The second column presents the feature importance for both models corresponding to the same method (B, E, and H). The third column shows the multifeatured approach where connectivity data were used along with demographic and cognitive variables (C, F, and I). Additional details on classification performance are provided in Supporting Information, Supplementary data 4. Ant = anterior; AUC = area under the ROC curve; bvFTD = behavioral variant; CBS = corticobasal syndrome; CC = clustering coefficient; Cereb = cerebellum; Cing = cingulum; D = degree; FA = fractional anisotropy; Fasc = fasciculus; Fr = frontal; GL = global efficiency; HC = healthy controls; Hipp = hippocampus; Inf = inferior; L = left; LE = local efficiency; Long = longitudinal; MD = mean diffusivity; Med = medial; NQA = normalized quantitative anisotropy; nfvPPA = progressive non- fluent aphasia; MMSE = Mini-Mental State Examination; Orb = orbital; PSP = progressive supranuclear palsy; R = right; RD = radial diffusivity; Sup = superior; Supp = supplementary; svPPA = semantic variant of FTD; Str = strength; Temp = temporal; Tri = pars triangularis. Network Neuroscience 337 Brain network multiclass characterization of frontotemporal dementias Figure 8. XGBoost classifier performance combining functional and structural connectivity for the multiclass classification of five variants of FTD and HCs. Performance with multimodal (A) and multifetured data (C) is presented individually, as well as the feature importance for both models (B). Additional details on classification performance are provided in Supporting Information, Supplementary data 4. AUC = area under the ROC curve; bvFTD = behavioral variant; CBS = corticobasal syndrome; CC = clustering coefficient; Cereb = cerebellum; D = degree; F = functional; Fr = frontal; GL = global efficiency; HC = healthy controls; Hpp = hippocampus; Inf = inferior; L = left; LE = local efficiency; nfvPPA = progressive nonfluent aphasia; Med = medial; Mid = middle; MMSE = Mini-Mental State Examination; Oper = operculum; Orb = orbital; PSP = progressive supranuclear palsy; R = right; Rolan = rolandic; S = structural; Sup = superior; sup = supplementary; svPPA = semantic variant of FTD; Temp = temporal; Tri = pars triangularis. cognitive features, we obtained an AUC of 0.89 (Figure 8C). The top features are shown in Figure 8B. Of note, the MMSE score ranked fourth in the multimodal approach. Results for the average AUC for each class in the ROC curves showed varying mean performance across modalities and methods (Figures 6, 7, and 8). Nevertheless, performance variability was low on different folds as shown in the confidence intervals. Moreover, feature stability was assessed on nested k-folds during the validation step (see Supporting Information, Supplemen- tary data 4 for details). In total, 14 XGBoost data- Comparison of metrics across modalities, methods, and techniques. driven models were used for the multiclass classification of the five variants of FTD and HCs based on the optimal feature sets after recursive optimization. The data were computed individually and combined with all modalities and methods (2 modalities × 3 methods + 1 multimodal). Furthermore, each of the models was calculated twice, with and without demo- graphic and cognitive variables. Based on the average performance indicators (i.e., accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, F1, and AUC; Figure 9 and Supporting Information, Supplementary data 4), the top three performing models were the raw functional multifeatured model, followed by the raw functional connectivity model and the multimodal multifeatured model. To statistically compare the performance results, we employed nonparametric tests to assess statistically significant differences between the ROC curves (Venkatraman, 2000). In this approach, the equality of the curves is analyzed at all operating points, and a reference distribution is gen- erated by permuting the pooled ranks of the test scores for each classification. We found that although the top performing model was the raw functional multifeatured model, the difference between this model and the two that followed (raw functional connectivity and multimodal multifeatured models) was not statistically significant (p > 0.05 in both cases).
To discard any possible effect due to the scanner, the classifiers were trained again with
data acquired on only one scanner (Informations complémentaires, Supplementary data 4) avec le
95.6 % of the data. The performance of all classifiers for one or two scanners did not show
statistical differences in the AUC values (all p > 0.05). To check possible biases due to specific
brain parcellations, we compared the performance of four of our models (graph connectivity
and graph multifeatured in both modalities) using the Human Connectome Project (HCP) atlas
(Glasser et al., 2016) with respect to our results with AAL atlas. Chiffre 10 shows the
Neurosciences en réseau
338
je
D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d
F
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
je
r
e
c
t
.
m
je
t
.
/
/
t
e
d
toi
n
e
n
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d
je
F
/
/
/
/
/
7
1
3
2
2
2
0
7
2
0
5
2
n
e
n
_
un
_
0
0
2
8
5
p
d
.
t
F
b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Brain network multiclass characterization of frontotemporal dementias
Chiffre 9. Performance metrics of the ML models. Mean for accuracy (UN), sensitivity (B), specificity
(C), F1 (D), and AUC (E) for the 14 ML models employed. *Microaverage AUC.
je
D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d
F
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
je
r
e
c
t
.
m
je
t
.
/
/
t
e
d
toi
n
e
n
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d
je
F
/
/
/
/
/
7
1
3
2
2
2
0
7
2
0
5
2
n
e
n
_
un
_
0
0
2
8
5
p
d
t
.
F
b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Chiffre 10. XGBoost classifier performance with graph connectivity data for the multiclass classifications of five variants of FTD and HCs
using Human Connectome Project atlas parcellation. The rows correspond to the two modalities: functional and structural. The first column
corresponds to the performance of models with connectivity data only (A and D). The second column presents the feature importance (B and
E). The third column shows the multifeatured approach where connectivity data were used along with demographic and cognitive variables
(C and F). 10v = area 10v (anterior cingulate and medial prefrontal cortices); 24dv = ventral area 24d (paracentral and mid cingulate cortices);
4 = primary motor cortex; 45 = Area 45 (inferior frontal cortex); 47l = area 47 lateral (inferior frontal cortex); 7AL = lateral area 7A (superior
parietal cortex); 8Ad (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex); AUC = area under the ROC curve; a47r = area anterior 47r (inferior frontal cortex), bvFTD =
behavioral variant; CBS = corticobasal syndrome; D = degree; GL = global efficiency; HC = healthy controls; IP0 = area intraparietal 0; L =
gauche; MMSE = Mini-Mental State Examination; MST = medial superior temporal area; MT = middle temporal area; nfvPPA = progressive non-
fluent aphasia; OFC = orbital frontal complex; PeEc = perirhinal ectorhinal cortex; POS2 = parieto-occipital sulcus area 2; PSL = perisylvian
language area; PSP = progressive supranuclear palsy; R = right; STSvp = superior temporal sulcus ventral posterior; svPPA = semantic variant of
FTD; TE2a = temporal area 2 anterior; V1 = primary visual cortex; V7 = seventh visual area.
Neurosciences en réseau
339
Brain network multiclass characterization of frontotemporal dementias
performance of ML models based on HCP parcellation with connectivity data only (Figure 10A
and D) and multifeatured data (Figure 10C and F). Aussi, the top features are presented in
Figure 10B and E. No significant differences were observed in the microaverage AUC for
the functional graph connectivity (statistic = 1.62, p = 0.14), the functional graph multifeature
(statistic = 2.12, p = 0.11), the structural graph connectivity (statistic = 1.58, p = 0.17) or the
structural graph multifeatured (statistic = 1.75, p = 0.12) classifiers. These comparisons were
based on nonparametric tests to assess statistical differences between the ROC curves
(Venkatraman, 2000). De plus, the most important features were in line with the results
obtained with the AAL atlas. Areas from the prefrontal cortex (inferior, dorsolateral, et
anterior cingulate regions), temporal lobe (superior and middle regions), and occipital lobe
(superior and inferior regions) were evidenced in both parcellations of the functional connec-
tivity classifiers. De la même manière, both atlases’ structural classifiers shared the main features, y compris
areas of frontal (inferior region) and occipital lobes.
DISCUSSION
Dans cette étude, a simultaneous multiclass categorization of each FTD variant and healthy con-
trols achieved a performance up to an AUC of 0.95. This was accomplished with a multifea-
tured strategy, where the classifiers combining brain network connectivity and cognitive
assessments increased model performance. The multimodal classifiers evidenced the relative
importance of specific domains for FTD variant characterization. Through progressive feature
elimination, an optimum set of features was obtained by removing redundant and uninforma-
tive variables. The results address current calls for robust FTD variant multimodal marker
classification. Cette approche, if further replicated and validated, may be translated into the
development of future affordable clinical decision computational tools.
Our framework provided support for proposed hypotheses regarding the multiclass classi-
fication of FTD variants based on computational inference. D'abord, we obtained highly accurate
simultaneous multiclass classification of each FTD variant relative to other variants and con-
trols after feature optimization. In line with previous studies, the functional ROI-to-ROI models
showed alterations in fronto-temporal (Jastorff et al., 2016; Meijboom et al., 2017), intrafrontal
(Dopper et al., 2014; Whitwell, 2019), and precuneus-insula (Whitwell et al., 2011b) connec-
tivité. De plus, the functional graph theory models captured node-degree differences in the
left superior occipital area (Agosta et al., 2013; Reyes et al., 2018), left Heschl gyrus (Agosta
et coll., 2013), and left frontal inferior pars triangularis (Zhou et al., 2012). Regarding the raw
structural connectivity models, and in agreement with previous research, we found alterations
in the uncinate fasciculus (Agosta et al., 2012; Daianu et al., 2016; Iaccarino et al., 2015;
Nguyen et al., 2013), superior longitudinal fasciculus (Agosta et al., 2012; Daianu et al.,
2016), corpus callosum (Tovar-Moll et al., 2014), dentatorubrothalamic tract (Whitwell
et coll., 2011un), and inferior fronto-occipital fasciculus (Meijboom et al., 2017). Deuxième, adding
cognitive features (c'est à dire., multifeatured approach) increased the averaged AUC performance
metrics across all subject groups. The relevance of adding cognitive features was further
evidenced in the feature importance lists of our models, where they ranked in the top four
positions across the multifeatured models. Troisième, although the raw functional models ranked
higher than the multimodal approach, the differences in performance were not statistically sig-
nificant. This may be because the top features of the multimodal approaches were mainly
functional connectivity features and adding information from other domains was not relevant
for FTD variant characterization. Increased model complexity with a limited dataset may
induce overfitting (Müller & Guido, 2016). Donc, model performance may be lower. Comment-
jamais, the multimodal approach helps to provide information on specific functional and
Neurosciences en réseau
340
je
D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d
F
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
je
r
e
c
t
.
m
je
t
.
/
t
/
e
d
toi
n
e
n
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d
je
F
/
/
/
/
/
7
1
3
2
2
2
0
7
2
0
5
2
n
e
n
_
un
_
0
0
2
8
5
p
d
t
.
F
b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Brain network multiclass characterization of frontotemporal dementias
structural alterations capturing differential patterns in FTD (Agosta et al., 2012; Nguyen et al.,
2013; Reyes et al., 2018; Whitwell, 2019).
The feature importance lists from our ML analyses showed that the most relevant features for
discriminating between FTD variants were generally in line with previous research. The sub-
jects with bvFTD showed reduced connectivity in the prefrontal, insular, and temporal regions
in terms of the functional (Agosta et al., 2013; Jalilianhasanpour et al., 2019; Seeley et al., 2009;
Whitwell, 2019) and structural (Dopper et al., 2014; Mahoney et al., 2015; Tovar-Moll et al.,
2014; Whitwell, 2019) réseaux, as well as a reduction in global network degree and efficiency
(Filippi et al., 2017; Reyes et al., 2018; Saba et al., 2019; Sedeño et al., 2016). The primary
alterations in the subjects with nfvPPA were observed in speech-language regions (Mandelli
et coll., 2016, 2018), with a predominance in the left hemisphere (Whitwell, 2019). The subjects
with svPPA exhibited distinct patterns of disconnection in functional (Agosta et al., 2014; Popal
et coll., 2020; Whitwell, 2019) and structural (Agosta et al., 2012; Iaccarino et al., 2015; Zhang
et coll., 2013) connectivity in the temporal lobe. Last, for the subjects with CBS, we found alter-
ations in motor/parietal areas (Tovar-Moll et al., 2014; Whitwell et al., 2014), while the subjects
with PSP showed structural alterations in connections encompassing the thalamus (Borroni
et coll., 2014; Whitwell et al., 2011un). We also detected increased connectivity values in specific
FTD variants, Par exemple, in the connections involving the parietal lobe in bvFTD (Meijboom
et coll., 2017; Whitwell et al., 2011b), the frontal lobe in CBS (Wolpe et al., 2014), occipital lobe
in PSP (Whitwell et al., 2011un), and structural thalamic tract connectivity in bvFTD and svPPA.
These findings may reflect compensatory mechanisms as a result of the disconnection of critical
brain regions specific to each pathology (Jalilianhasanpour et al., 2019; Saba et al., 2019).
Dans l'ensemble, our ML approach was consistent with previous studies, while allowing the detection
of specific alterations in distinct FTD variants with overlapping pathophysiological profiles,
avoiding possible methodological biases. En outre, we compared, for the first time, the per-
formance reached for multiclass classifications of FTD variants with data from different modal-
ities of connectivity and using different methods.
Our approach provides a comprehensive computational framework that may be used in
clinical settings after replication and external validation. Historically, ML research on the
categorization of dementia has relied on binary comparisons and atrophy metrics. Cependant,
atrophy is associated with late-stage neurodegeneration (Lu et al., 2013; Seeley et al., 2008),
while brain connectivity alterations may be present at early stages (Dopper et al., 2014; Meeter
et coll., 2017). The few studies with multiclass comparisons of FTD variants were conducted
only with atrophy metrics (Kim et al., 2019) and tractography (Torso et al., 2020, 2021).
En effet, the literature examining binary comparisons of FTD variants is more extensive, indi-
vidually assessing atrophy (Bachli et al., 2020; Bisenius et al., 2017; Meyer et al., 2017;
Salvatore et al., 2014; Santillo et al., 2013) and functional (Moguilner et al., 2021) and struc-
tural (Mahoney et al., 2014; Santillo et al., 2013) connectivity measures. To the best of our
connaissance, our approach is the first to enable multiclass model characterizations in a
multimodal context. De plus, this approach outperforms previous attempts for multiclass
classification (Kim et al., 2019; Torso et al., 2020, 2021). Ainsi, our research lays the ground-
work for the future creation of a useful clinical computational inference tool.
Limitations and Future Studies
Our work has some limitations. D'abord, despite the larger sample size compared to similar pre-
vious studies in the literature (Kim et al., 2019; Torso et al., 2020), the sample was based on a
unique database. Future research may include multicentric samples from different consortia,
Neurosciences en réseau
341
je
D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d
F
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
je
r
e
c
t
.
m
je
t
.
/
/
t
e
d
toi
n
e
n
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d
je
F
/
/
/
/
/
7
1
3
2
2
2
0
7
2
0
5
2
n
e
n
_
un
_
0
0
2
8
5
p
d
.
t
F
b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Brain network multiclass characterization of frontotemporal dementias
with a variety of MRI acquisition protocols to assess the robustness of this method against het-
erogeneity. En plus, to test the robustness of our results against sample heterogeneity, data
from underrepresented populations with different genetic, demographic, and socioeconomic
factors should be included (Ibañez et al., 2021un, 2021b). Deuxième, we lacked histopathological
diagnosis confirmation. Cependant, this limitation is shared with previous similar work in the
literature (Ma et al., 2020; Manera et al., 2019; Torso et al., 2020; Yu & Lee, 2019), et
our approach can be extended to other datasets with histopathological confirmation. Troisième,
our models should be compared in future studies to standard biomarkers such as PET and
plasma indicators to evaluate potential synergistic biomarker combinations. Fourth, bien que
the cognitive test employed in this study was the MMSE, additional specific assessments for
FTD are available, such as particular executive function and language tasks (Custodio et al.,
2016; Kramer, Alioto, & Kramer, 2020; Torralva et al., 2009; Younes & Miller, 2020), lequel
may be added to the model. Fifth, despite the AAL being one of the most widely assess atlases
in dementia research (Elsheikh et al., 2021; Ibañez et al., 2021un, 2021b; Lee et al., 2018; Liu
et coll., 2012; Lord et al., 2016; Reyes et al., 2018; Saba et al., 2019; Sedeño et al., 2016, 2017),
future research may compare classification performance across different brain parcellations in the
dementia population. As a starting point, we compared the AAL and the HCP atlas (Glasser et al.,
2016) parcellation on a representative subsample (graph connectivity and graph multifeature in
both modalities) and we did not find significant differences in the AUC across groups. De plus,
the pathophysiological profile evidenced in our feature importance analysis was similar. Models
using both atlases prioritized hallmark-affected areas for FTD, such as inferior and dorsolateral
prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulum, middle, and superior temporal areas (Filippi et al., 2013;
Meeter et al., 2017; Whitwell, 2019; Whitwell et al., 2011b; Zhang et al., 2009). En outre,
the AAL’s models prioritized also other areas with extensive evidence of affectation in FTD such
as the insula and precuneus (Agosta et al., 2013; Baez et al., 2019; Popal et al., 2020; Reyes et al.,
2018; Whitwell et al., 2011b). The selection of parcellation must rely on quantifiable factors such
as reproducibility, clustering validity metrics, multimodal comparisons, and network analysis
(Arslan et al., 2018). Surtout, no single parcellation consistently outperforms the others across
all evaluation criteria (Arslan et al., 2018). Ainsi, by considering the various studies that used the
AAL atlas in dementia research, even with ML methods (Asim et al., 2018; Bachli et al., 2020;
Castellazzi et al., 2020; Hao et al., 2020; McMillan et al., 2014; Park et al., 2022; Sedeño
et coll., 2017), our choice of parcellation was based on the reproducibility criteria. A systematic
comparison of multiple atlases across the different modalities is beyond the scope of this work.
Enfin, most of the patients in this study were in the early to moderate stages of the disease. Future
longitudinal studies may determine the value of our approach for monitoring disease progression.
Conclusions
We developed a multiclass characterization of FTD variants combining hundreds of functional
and structural network features, as well as demographic and cognitive variables. In contrast to
previous studies, we optimized the variable space by eliminating uninformative features result-
ing in a highly accurate FTD variant characterization. This approach can help in the future
development of clinical decision support tools aimed at detecting specific affectations in the
context of overlapping neurodegenerative diseases.
REMERCIEMENTS
We thankfully acknowledge the participation of patients and controls, as well as the support of
the patients’ families. Data used in preparation of this article were obtained from the Fronto-
temporal Lobar Degeneration Neuroimaging Initiative (FTLDNI) database (https://4rtni-ftldni
Neurosciences en réseau
342
je
D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d
F
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
je
r
e
c
t
.
m
je
t
.
/
t
/
e
d
toi
n
e
n
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d
je
F
/
/
/
/
/
7
1
3
2
2
2
0
7
2
0
5
2
n
e
n
_
un
_
0
0
2
8
5
p
d
.
t
F
b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Brain network multiclass characterization of frontotemporal dementias
.ini.usc.edu/). The investigators at NIFD/FTLDNI contributed to the design and implementation
of FTLDNI and/or provided data but did not participate in analysis or writing of this report.
INFORMATIONS À L'APPUI
Supporting information for this article is available at https://doi.org/10.1162/netn_a_00285.
Datasets are available in their own online repository: Neuroimaging In Frontotemporal
Dementia (NIFD/LONI). The code for the data analysis of this study is available from the
corresponding author on reasonable request.
CONTRIBUTIONS DES AUTEURS
Sebastian Moguilner: Conceptualisation; Analyse formelle; Enquête; Méthodologie; Soft-
ware; Surveillance; Visualisation; Rédaction – ébauche originale; Rédaction – révision & édition. Raul
Gonzalez-Gomez: Conceptualisation; Conservation des données; Analyse formelle; Enquête; Logiciel;
Validation; Visualisation; Rédaction – ébauche originale; Rédaction – révision & édition. Agustín Ibañez:
Conceptualisation; Acquisition de financement; Méthodologie; Surveillance; Rédaction – ébauche originale;
Rédaction – révision & édition.
je
D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d
F
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
je
r
e
c
t
.
m
je
t
.
INFORMATIONS SUR LE FINANCEMENT
Agustín Ibáñez, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company (https://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100008373),
Award ID: CW2680521. This work is partially supported by grants from CONICET;
ANID/ FONDECYT Regular (1170010); FONCYT-PICT 2017-1820; Sistema General de
Regalías (BPIN2018000100059), Universidad del Valle (CI 5316); Alzheimer’s Association
GBHI ALZ UK-20-639295; and the Multi-Partner Consortium To Expand Dementia Research
In Latin America: ReDLat, supported by National Institutes of Health, National Institutes of
Aging (R01 AG057234), Alzheimer’s Association (SG-20-725707), Rainwater Charitable foun-
dation – Tau Consortium, and Global Brain Health Institute).
t
/
/
e
d
toi
n
e
n
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d
je
F
/
/
/
/
/
7
1
3
2
2
2
0
7
2
0
5
2
n
e
n
_
un
_
0
0
2
8
5
p
d
t
.
RÉFÉRENCES
Agosta, F., Galantucci, S., Valsasina, P., Canu, E., Meani, UN.,
Marcone, UN., … Filippi, M.. (2014). Disrupted brain connectome
in semantic variant of primary progressive aphasia. Neurobiology
o f A g i n g , 3 5 , 2 6 4 6 – 2 6 5 5 . h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j
.neurobiolaging.2014.05.017, PubMed: 24970567
Agosta, F., Sala, S., Valsasina, P., Meani, UN., Canu, E., Magnani, G.,
… Filippi, M.. (2013). Brain network connectivity assessed using
graph theory in frontotemporal dementia. Neurologie, 81,
134–143. https://doi.org/10.1212/ WNL.0b013e31829a33f8,
PubMed: 23719145
Agosta, F., Scola, E., Canu, E., Marcone, UN., Magnani, G., Sarro, L.,
… Filippi, M.. (2012). White matter damage in frontotemporal
lobar degeneration spectrum. Cortex cérébral, 22, 2705–2714.
https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhr288, PubMed: 21988828
Armstrong, M.. J., Litvan, JE., Lang, UN. E., Bak, T. H., Bhatia, K. P.,
Borroni, B., … Weiner, W. J.. (2013). Criteria for the diagnosis of
corticobasal degeneration. Neurologie, 80, 496–503. https://est ce que je
.org/10.1212/ WNL.0b013e31827f0fd1, PubMed: 23359374
Arslan, S., Ktena, S. JE., Makropoulos, UN., Robinson, E. C., Rueckert,
D., & Parisot, S. (2018). Human brain mapping: A systematic
comparison of parcellation methods for the human cerebral
cortex. NeuroImage, 170, 5–30. https://est ce que je.org/10.1016/j
.neuroimage.2017.04.014, PubMed: 28412442
Asim, Y., Raza, B., Malik, UN. K., Rathore, S., Hussain, L., & Iftikhar,
M.. UN. (2018). A multi-modal, multi-atlas-based approach for
Alzheimer detection via machine learning. International Journal
of Imaging Systems and Technology, 28(2), 113–123. https://est ce que je
.org/10.1002/ima.22263
Bachli, M.. B., Sedeño, L., Ochab, J.. K., Piguet, O., Kumfor, F.,
Reyes, P., … Chialvo, D. R.. (2020). Evaluating the reliability of
neurocognitive biomarkers of neurodegenerative diseases across
des pays: A machine learning approach. NeuroImage, 208,
116456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116456,
PubMed: 31841681
Baez, S., Pinasco, C., Roca, M., Ferrari, J., Couto, B., García-
Cordero, JE., … Torralva, T. (2019). Brain structural correlates of
executive and social cognition profiles in behavioral variant fron-
totemporal dementia and elderly bipolar disorder. Neuropsycho-
logia, 126, 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia
.2017.02.012, PubMed: 28219620
F
b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Neurosciences en réseau
343
Brain network multiclass characterization of frontotemporal dementias
Basser, P.. J., Mattiello, J., & LeBihan, D. (1994un). Estimation of the
effective self-diffusion tensor from the NMR spin echo. Journal de
Magnetic Resonance, Série B, 103, 247–254. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1006/jmrb.1994.1037, PubMed: 8019776
Basser, P.. J., Mattiello, J., & LeBihan, D. (1994b). MR diffusion tensor
spectroscopy and imaging. Biophysical Journal, 66, 259–267.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(94)80775-1, PubMed: 8130344
Bassett, D. S., & Bullmore, E. (2006). Small-world brain networks.
Ne uro scientist, 12, 512 –5 23. https://d oi.org/10 .117 7
/1073858406293182, PubMed: 17079517
Behravan, H., Hartikainen, J.. M., Tengström, M., Pylkäs, K.,
Winqvist, R., Kosma, V. M., & Mannermaa, UN. (2018). Machine
learning identifies interacting genetic variants contributing to
breast cancer risk: A case study in Finnish cases and controls.
Rapports scientifiques, 8, 13149. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598
-018-31573-5, PubMed: 30177847
Bejanin, UN., Tammewar, G., Marx, G., Cobigo, Y., Iaccarino, L.,
Kornak, J., … Rabinovici, G. D. (2020). Longitudinal structural and
metabolic changes in frontotemporal dementia. Neurologie, 95(2),
e140–e154. https://doi.org/10.1212/ WNL.0000000000009760,
PubMed: 32591470
Bharti, K., Bologna, M., Upadhyay, N., Piattella, M.. C., Suppa, UN.,
Petsas, N., … Pantano, P.. (2017). Abnormal resting-state func-
tional connectivity in progressive supranuclear palsy and cortico-
basal syndrome. Frontiers in Neurology, 8, 248. https://est ce que je.org/10
.3389/fneur.2017.00248, PubMed: 28634465
Bisenius, S., Mueller, K., Diehl-Schmid, J., Fassbender, K., Grimmer,
T., Jessen, F., … Schroeter, M.. L. (2017). Predicting primary pro-
gressive aphasias with support vector machine approaches in
structural MRI data. NeuroImage: Clinique, 14, 334–343. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2017.02.003, PubMed: 28229040
Boeve, B. F., Boxer, UN. L., Kumfor, F., Pijnenburg, Y., & Rohrer, J.. D.
(2022). Advances and controversies in frontotemporal dementia:
Diagnosis, biomarkers, and therapeutic considerations. Le
Lancet Neurology, 21(3), 258–272. https://est ce que je.org/10.1016
/S1474-4422(21)00341-0, PubMed: 35182511
Borroni, B., Benussi, UN., Pilotto, UN., Gazzina, S., Turrone, R.,
Gardoni, F., … Padovani, UN. (2014). Diagnosing progressive
supranuclear palsy: Role of biological and neuroimaging
markers. Journal of Alzheimerʼs Disease & Parkinsonism, 4, 168.
https://doi.org/10.4172/2161-0460.1000168
Boxer, UN. L., Geschwind, M.. D., Belfor, N., Gorno-Tempini, M.. L.,
Schauer, G. F., Miller, B. L., … Rosen, H. J.. (2006). Patterns of brain
atrophy that differentiate corticobasal degeneration syndrome
from progressive supranuclear palsy. Archives of Neurology, 63,
81–86. https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.63.1.81, PubMed:
16401739
Bressler, S. L., & Menon, V. (2010). Large-scale brain networks in
cognition: Emerging methods and principles. Tendances cognitives
les sciences, 14, 277–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.04
.004, PubMed: 20493761
Bullmore, E., & Sporns, Ô. (2009). Complex brain networks: Graph
theoretical analysis of structural and functional systems. Nature
Reviews Neuroscience, 10, 186–198. https://est ce que je.org/10.1038
/nrn2575, PubMed: 19190637
Bzdok, D., Altman, N., & Krzywinski, M.. (2018). Statistics versus
machine learning. Nature Methods, 15, 233–234. https://est ce que je
.org/10.1038/nmeth.4642, PubMed: 30100822
Bzdok, D., Krzywinski, M., & Altman, N. (2017). Machine learning:
A primer. Nature Methods, 14, 1119–1120. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1038/nmeth.4526, PubMed: 29664466
Callaghan, P.. T. (1994). Principles of nuclear magnetic resonance
microscopy. Oxford, ROYAUME-UNI: Clarendon Press.
Castellazzi, G., Cuzzoni, M.. G., Cotta Ramusino, M., Martinelli,
D., Denaro, F., Ricciardi, UN., … Gandini Wheeler-Kingshott,
C. UN. M.. (2020). A machine learning approach for the differential
diagnosis of Alzheimer and vascular dementia fed by MRI
selected features. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 14, 25. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2020.00025, PubMed: 32595465
Chen, X., Lu, B., & Yan, C. G. (2018). Reproducibility of R-fMRI
metrics on the impact of different strategies for multiple comparison
correction and sample sizes. Human Brain Mapping, 39, 300–318.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.23843, PubMed: 29024299
Chen, Y., Landin-Romero, R., Kumfor, F., Irish, M., Hodges, J.. R., &
Piguet, Ô. (2020). Cerebellar structural connectivity and contri-
butions to cognition in frontotemporal dementias. Cortex, 129,
57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2020.04.013, PubMed:
32428762
Churcher, UN., Ullah, R., Ahmad, J., Ur Rehman, S., Masood, F.,
Gogate, M., Alqahtani, F., Nour, B., & Buchanan, W. J.. (2021).
An experimental analysis of attack classification using machine
learning in IoT networks. Sensors, 21, 446. https://est ce que je.org/10
.3390/s21020446, PubMed: 33435202
Cohen, J.. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
New York, New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587
Cohen, J.. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112,
155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155,
PubMed: 19565683
Cohen, J.. D., Daw, N., Engelhardt, B., Hasson, U., Li, K., Niv, Y., …
Willke, T. L. (2017). Computational approaches to fMRI analysis.
Neurosciences naturelles, 20, 304–313. https://est ce que je.org/10.1038/nn
.4499, PubMed: 28230848
Custodio, N., Herrera-Perez, E., Lira, D., Roca, M., Manes, F., Báez,
S., & Torralva, T. (2016). Evaluation of the INECO frontal screen-
ing and the frontal assessment battery in Peruvian patients with
Alzheimerʼs disease and behavioral variant frontotemporal
dementia. eNeurologicalSci, 5, 25–29. https://est ce que je.org/10.1016/j
.ensci.2016.11.001, PubMed: 29430554
Daianu, M., Mendez, M.. F., Baboyan, V. G., Jin, Y., Melrose, R.. J.,
Jimenez, E. E., & Thompson, P.. M.. (2016). An advanced white
matter tract analysis in frontotemporal dementia and early-
onset Alzheimerʼs disease. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 10,
1038–1053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11682-015-9458-5,
PubMed: 26515192
Deshpande, G., Laconte, S., Peltier, S., & Hu, X. (2009). Integrated
local correlation: A new measure of local coherence in fMRI data.
Human Brain Mapping, 23, 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm
.20482, PubMed: 17979117
Dickerson, B. C., Fenstermacher, E., Salat, D. H., Wolk, D. UN.,
Maguire, R.. P., Desikan, R., … Fischl, B. (2008). Detection of cor-
tical thickness correlates of cognitive performance: Reliability
across MRI scan sessions, scanners, and field strengths. Neuro-
Image, 39, 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007
.08.042, PubMed: 17942325
Donnelly-Kehoe, P.. UN., Pascariello, G. O., & Gómez, J.. C. (2018).
Looking for Alzheimerʼs disease morphometric signatures using
Neurosciences en réseau
344
je
D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d
F
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
je
r
e
c
t
.
m
je
t
.
t
/
/
e
d
toi
n
e
n
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d
je
F
/
/
/
/
/
7
1
3
2
2
2
0
7
2
0
5
2
n
e
n
_
un
_
0
0
2
8
5
p
d
t
.
F
b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Brain network multiclass characterization of frontotemporal dementias
machine learning techniques. Journal of Neuroscience Methods,
302, 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2017.11.013,
PubMed: 29174020
Dopper, E. G. P., Rombouts, S. UN. R.. B., Jiskoot, L. C., den Heijer, T.,
de Graaf, J.. R.. UN., de Koning, JE., … van Swieten, J.. C. (2014). Struc-
tural and functional brain connectivity in presymptomatic famil-
ial frontotemporal dementia. Neurologie, 83(2), e19–e26. https://
d oi.org/10 .1 21 2/ W NL.00 000 00 00 00 005 83 , Pu bM ed:
25002573
Dottori, M., Sedenõ, L., Martorell Caro, M., Alifano, F., Hesse, E.,
Mikulan, E., … Ibañez, UN. (2017). Towards affordable biomarkers
of frontotemporal dementia: A classification study via networkʼs
information sharing. Rapports scientifiques, 7, 3822. https://doi.org
/10.1038/s41598-017-04204-8, PubMed: 28630492
Elsheikh, S. S. M., Chimusa, E. R., Mulder, N. J., & Crimi, UN. (2021).
Relating global and local connectome changes to dementia and
targeted gene expression in Alzheimerʼs disease. Frontiers in
Human Neuroscience, 15, 761424. https://doi.org/10.3389
/fnhum.2021.761424, PubMed: 35002653
Fawcett, T. (2006). An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recog-
nition Letters, 27, 861–874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2005
.10.010
Feis, R.. UN., Bouts, M.. J.. R.. J., Panman, J.. L., Jiskoot, L. C., Dopper,
E. G. P., Schouten, T. M., … Rombouts, S. UN. R.. B. (2018). Single-
subject classification of presymptomatic frontotemporal demen-
tia mutation carriers using multimodal MRI. NeuroImage:
Clinique, 20, 188–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2018.07
.014, PubMed: 30094168
Feurer, M., & Hutter, F. (2019). Hyperparameter optimization. Dans
Automated machine learning: Methods, systèmes, challenges
(pp. 3–33). Cham, Suisse: Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05318-5_1
Filippi, M., Agosta, F., Scola, E., Canu, E., Magnani, G., Marcone,
UN., … Falini, UN. (2013). Functional network connectivity in the
behavioral variant of frontotemporal dementia. Cortex, 49,
2389–2401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2012.09.017,
PubMed: 23164495
Filippi, M., Basaia, S., Canu, E., Imperiale, F., Meani, UN., Caso, F., …
Agosta, F. (2017). Brain network connectivity differs in early-
onset neurodegenerative dementia. Neurologie, 89, 1764–1772.
https://doi.org/10.1212/ WNL.0000000000004577, PubMed:
28954876
Finn, E. S., Shen, X., Scheinost, D., Rosenberg, M.. D., Huang, J.,
Chun, M.. M., … Constable, R.. T. (2015). Functional connectome
fingerprinting: Identifying individuals using patterns of brain con-
nectivity. Neurosciences naturelles, 18, 1664–1671. https://doi.org
/10.1038/nn.4135, PubMed: 26457551
Fittipaldi, S., Abrevaya, S., de la Fuente, UN., Pascariello, G. O.,
Hesse, E., Birba, UN., … Ibáñez, UN. (2020). A multidimensional
and multi-feature framework for cardiac interoception. Neuro-
Image, 212, 116677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020
.116677, PubMed: 32101777
Fox, M.. D., & Raichle, M.. E. (2007). Spontaneous fluctuations in
brain activity observed with functional magnetic resonance
imaging. Nature Revues Neurosciences, 8, 700–711. https://est ce que je
.org/10.1038/nrn2201, PubMed: 17704812
Fox, R.. J., Sakaie, K., Lee, J.. C., Debbins, J.. P., Liu, Y., Arnold, D. L.,
… Fisher, E. (2012). A validation study of multicenter diffusion
tensor imaging: Reliability of fractional anisotropy and diffusivity
valeurs. American Journal of Neuroradiology, 33, 695–700.
https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A2844, PubMed: 22173748
Gao, X., Il, Y., Zhang, M., Diao, X., Jing, X., Ren, B., & Ji, W.
(2021). A multiclass classification using one-versus-all approach
with the differential partition sampling ensemble. Engineering
Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 97, 104034. https://est ce que je
.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2020.104034
Glasser, M.. F., Coalson, T. S., Robinson, E. C., Hacker, C. D., Harwell,
J., Yacoub, E., … van Essen, D. C. (2016). A multi-modal parcellation
of human cerebral cortex. Nature, 536(7615), 171–178. https://est ce que je
.org/10.1038/nature18933, PubMed: 27437579
Gonzalez Campo, C., Salamone, P., Rodriguez-Arriagada, N.,
Richter, F., Herrera, E., Bruno, D., … Sedeno, L. (2020). Fatigue
in multiple sclerosis is associated to multimodal interoceptive
abnormalities. Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 26(14), 1845–1853.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458519888881, PubMed:
31778101
Gorno-Tempini, M.. L., Hillis, UN. E., Weintraub, S., Kertesz, UN.,
Mendez, M., Cappa, S. F., … Grossman, M.. (2011). Classification
of primary progressive aphasia and its variants. Neurologie, 76,
1006–1014. https://doi.org/10.1212/ WNL.0b013e31821103e6,
PubMed: 21325651
Hafkemeijer, UN., Möller, C., Dopper, E. G. P., Jiskoot, L. C., van den
Berg-Huysmans, UN. UN., van Swieten, J.. C., … Rombouts, S. UN. R.. B.
(2017). A longitudinal study on resting state functional connec-
tivity in behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia and Alzhei-
merʼs disease. Journal of Alzheimerʼs Disease, 55, 521–537.
https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-150695, PubMed: 27662284
Han, X., Jovicich, J., Salat, D., van der Kouwe, UN., Quinn, B.,
Czanner, S., … Fischl, B. (2006). Reliability of MRI-derived mea-
surements of human cerebral cortical thickness: The effects of
field strength, scanner upgrade and manufacturer. NeuroImage,
32, 180–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.02
.051, PubMed: 16651008
Hao, X., Bao, Y., Guo, Y., Yu, M., Zhang, D., Risacher, S. L., … Shen,
L. (2020). Multi-modal neuroimaging feature selection with con-
sistent metric constraint for diagnosis of Alzheimerʼs disease.
Medical Image Analysis, 60, 101625. https://est ce que je.org/10.1016/j
.media.2019.101625, PubMed: 31841947
Hecke, W. V., Emsell, L., & Sunaert, S. (2016). Diffusion tensor
imaging: A practical handbook. Cham, Suisse: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3118-7
Hohenfeld, C., Werner, C. J., & Reetz, K. (2018). Resting-state con-
nectivity in neurodegenerative disorders: Is there potential for an
imaging biomarker? NeuroImage: Clinique, 18, 849–870. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2018.03.013, PubMed: 29876270
Hou, T., Bian, Y., McGuire, T., & Xie, X.-Q. (2021). Integrated
multi-class classification and prediction of GPCR allosteric modu-
lators by machine learning intelligence. Biomolecules, 11(6), 870.
https://doi.org/10.3390/biom11060870, PubMed: 34208096
Huys, Q. J.. M., Maia, T. V., & Frank, M.. J.. (2016). Informatique
psychiatry as a bridge from neuroscience to clinical applications.
Neurosciences naturelles, 19, 404–413. https://est ce que je.org/10.1038/nn
.4238, PubMed: 26906507
Iaccarino, L., Crespi, C., Della Rosa, P.. UN., Catricalà, E., Guidi, L.,
Marcone, UN., … Perani, D. (2015). The semantic variant of pri-
mary progressive aphasia: Clinical and neuroimaging evidence
Neurosciences en réseau
345
je
D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d
F
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
je
r
e
c
t
.
m
je
t
.
/
/
t
e
d
toi
n
e
n
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d
je
F
/
/
/
/
/
7
1
3
2
2
2
0
7
2
0
5
2
n
e
n
_
un
_
0
0
2
8
5
p
d
t
.
F
b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Brain network multiclass characterization of frontotemporal dementias
in single subjects. PLoS One, 10, e0120197. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1371/journal.pone.0120197, PubMed: 25756991
Ibañez, UN., Fittipaldi, S., Trujillo, C., Jaramillo, T., Torres, UN.,
Cardona, J.. F., … Baez, S. (2021un). Predicting and characterizing
neurodegenerative subtypes with multimodal neurocognitive sig-
natures of social and cognitive processes. Journal of Alzheimerʼs
Disease, 83, 227–248. https://doi.org/10.3233/ JAD-210163,
PubMed: 34275897
Ibañez, UN., Yokoyama, J.. S., Possin, K. L., Matallana, D., Lopera, F.,
Nitrini, R., Takada, L. T., Custodio, N., Sosa Ortiz, UN. L., Avila-
Funes, J.. UN., Behrens, M.. JE., Slachevsky, UN., Myers, R.. M., Cochran,
J.. N., Brusco, L. JE., Bruno, M.. UN., Brucki, S. M.. D., Pina-Escudero,
S. D., Okada de Oliveira, M., … Miller, B. L. (2021b). Le
Multi-Partner Consortium to Expand Dementia Research in Latin
America (ReDLat): Driving multicentric research and implemen-
tation science. Frontiers in Neurology, 12, 631722. https://doi.org
/10.3389/fneur.2021.631722, PubMed: 33776890
Jalilianhasanpour, R., Beheshtian, E., Sherbaf, G., Sahraian, S., &
Sair, H. je. (2019). Functional connectivity in neurodegenerative
disorders: Alzheimerʼs disease and frontotemporal dementia.
Topics in Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 28, 317–324. https://
doi.org/10.1097/RMR.0000000000000223, PubMed: 31794504
Jastorff, J., De Winter, F.-L., Van den Stock, J., Vandenberghe, R.,
Giese, M.. UN., & Vandenbulcke, M.. (2016). Functional dissocia-
tion between anterior temporal lobe and inferior frontal gyrus
in the processing of dynamic body expressions: Insights from
behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia. Human Brain Map-
ping, 37, 4472–4486. https://doi.org/10.1002/ hbm.23322,
PubMed: 27510944
Kassraian-Fard, P., Matthis, C., Balsters, J.. H., Maathuis, M.. H., &
Wenderoth, N. (2016). Promises, pitfalls, and basic guidelines
for applying machine learning classifiers to psychiatric imaging
data, with autism as an example. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 7, 177.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00177, PubMed: 27990125
Kaufmann, T., van der Meer, D., Doan, N. T., Schwarz, E., Lund,
M.. J., Agartz, JE., … Westlye, L. T. (2019). Common brain disorders
are associated with heritable patterns of apparent aging of the
brain. Neurosciences naturelles, 22, 1617–1623. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1038/s41593-019-0471-7, PubMed: 31551603
Khazaee, UN., Ebrahimzadeh, UN., & Babajani-Feremi, UN. (2015).
Identifying patients with Alzheimerʼs disease using resting-state
fMRI and graph theory. Neurophysiologie clinique, 126,
2132–2141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2015.02.060,
PubMed: 25907414
Kim, J.. P., Kim, J., Parc, Oui. H., Parc, S. B., Lee, J.. S., Yoo, S., … Seong,
J.. K. (2019). Machine learning based hierarchical classification of
frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimerʼs disease. NeuroImage:
Clinique, 23, 101811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2019.101811,
PubMed: 30981204
Koyejo, O., Natarajan, N., Ravikumar, P., & Dhillon, je. S. (2015).
Advances in neural information processing systems. Paper pre-
sented at the Proceedings of the 28th International Conference
on Neural Information Processing Systems.
Kramer, UN. O., Alioto, UN. G., & Kramer, J.. H. (2020). Neurodegen-
erative conditions: FTD. In K. Sweeny, M.. L. Robbins, & L. M..
Cohen (Éd.), The Wiley encyclopedia of health psychology (1st
éd., pp. 209–218). John Wiley & Fils. https://doi.org/10.1002
/9781119057840.ch25
Lee, W. J., Han, C. E., Aganj, JE., Seo, S. W., & Seong, J.. K. (2018).
Distinct patterns of rich club organization in Alzheimerʼs disease
and subcortical vascular dementia: A white matter network study.
Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 63(3), 977–987. https://doi.org
/10.3233/JAD-180027, PubMed: 29710719
Liu, Z., Zhang, Y., Yan, H., Bai, L., Dai, R., Wei, W., … Tian, J..
(2012). Altered topological patterns of brain networks in mild
cognitive impairment and Alzheimerʼs disease: A resting-state
fMRI study. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 202(2), 118–125.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2012.03.002, PubMed:
22695315
Lord, UN., Ehrlich, S., Borchardt, V., Geisler, D., Seidel, M., Huber, S., …
Walter, M.. (2016). Brain parcellation choice affects disease-related
topology differences increasingly from global to local network
levels. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 249, 12–19. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2016.02.001, PubMed: 27000302
Lu, P.. H., Mendez, M.. F., Lee, G. J., Leow, UN. D., Lee, H.-W.,
Shapira, J., … Knopman, D. S. (2013). Patterns of brain atrophy
in clinical variants of frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Demen-
tia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 35, 34–50. https://doi.org
/10.1159/000345523, PubMed: 23306166
Ma, D., Lu, D., Popuri, K., Wang, L., & Beg, M.. F. (2020). Differen-
tial diagnosis of frontotemporal dementia, Alzheimerʼs disease,
and normal aging using a multi-scale multi-type feature genera-
tive adversarial deep neural network on structural magnetic res-
onance images. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 14, 853. https://est ce que je
.org/10.3389/fnins.2020.00853, PubMed: 33192235
Mahoney, C. J., Ridgway, G. R., Malone, je. B., Downey, L. E., Beck,
J., Kinnunen, K. M., … Warren, J.. D. (2014). Profiles of white
matter tract pathology in frontotemporal dementia. Cerveau humain
Cartographie, 35, 4163–4179. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22468,
PubMed: 24510641
Mahoney, C. J., Simpson, je. J.. UN., Nicholas, J.. M., Fletcher, P.. D.,
Downey, L. E., Golden, H. L., … Fox, N. C. (2015). Longitudinal
diffusion tensor imaging in frontotemporal dementia. Annales de
Neurologie, 77, 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.24296,
PubMed: 25363208
Maier-Hein, K. H., Neher, P.. F., Houde, J.-C., Côté, M.-A., Garyfallidis,
E., Zhong, J., … Descoteaux, M.. (2017). The challenge of mapping
the human connectome based on diffusion tractography. Nature
Communications, 8, 1349. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017
-01285-X, PubMed: 29116093
Makridakis, S., Spiliotis, E., & Assimakopoulos, V. (2018). Statistical
and machine learning forecasting methods: Concerns and ways
avant. PLoS One, 13(3), e0194889. https://doi.org/10.1371
/journal.pone.0194889, PubMed: 29584784
Mandelli, M.. L., Vilaplana, E., Brun, J.. UN., Hubbard, H. JE., Binney,
R.. J., Attygalle, S., … Gorno-Tempini, M.. L. (2016). Healthy brain
connectivity predicts atrophy progression in non-fluent variant of
primary progressive aphasia. Cerveau, 139, 2778–2791. https://est ce que je
.org/10.1093/brain/aww195, PubMed: 27497488
Mandelli, M.. L., Welch, UN. E., Vilaplana, E., Watson, C., Battistella, G.,
Brun, J.. UN., … Gorno-Tempini, M.. L. (2018). Altered topology
of the functional speech production network in non-fluent/
agrammatic variant of PPA. Cortex, 108, 252–264. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.08.002, PubMed: 30292076
Manera, UN. L., Dadar, M., Collins, D. L., & Ducharme, S. (2019).
Deformation based morphometry study of longitudinal MRI
Neurosciences en réseau
346
je
D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d
F
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
je
r
e
c
t
.
m
je
t
.
/
/
t
e
d
toi
n
e
n
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d
je
F
/
/
/
/
/
7
1
3
2
2
2
0
7
2
0
5
2
n
e
n
_
un
_
0
0
2
8
5
p
d
.
t
F
b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Brain network multiclass characterization of frontotemporal dementias
changes in behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia. Neuro-
Image: Clinique, 24, 102079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2019
.102079, PubMed: 31795051
Mason, L., Baxter, J., Bartlett, P., & Frean, M.. (1999). Boosting algo-
rithms as gradient descent in function space. Advances in Neural
Information Processing, 12, 512–518.
McMillan, C. T., Avants, B. B., Cook, P., Ungar, L., Trojanowski,
J.. Q., & Grossman, M.. (2014). The power of neuroimaging bio-
markers for screening frontotemporal dementia. Cerveau humain
Cartographie, 35, 4827–4840. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22515,
PubMed: 24687814
McMillan, C. T., Brun, C., Siddiqui, S., Churgin, M., Libon, D.,
Yushkevich, P., … Grossman, M.. (2012). White matter imaging
contributes to the multimodal diagnosis of frontotemporal lobar
degeneration. Neurologie, 78, 1761–1768. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1212/ WNL.0b013e31825830bd, PubMed: 22592372
Meeter, L. H., Kaat, L. D., Rohrer, J.. D., & van Swieten, J.. C. (2017).
Imaging and fluid biomarkers in frontotemporal dementia.
Nature Reviews Neurology, 13, 406–419. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1038/nrneurol.2017.75, PubMed: 28621768
Meijboom, R., Steketee, R.. M.. E., Ham, L. S., van der Lugt, UN., van
Swieten, J.. C., & Smits, M.. (2017). Differential hemispheric
predilection of microstructural white matter and functional
connectivity abnormalities between respectively semantic and
behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia. Journal of Alzhei-
merʼs Disease, 56(2), 789–804. https://doi.org/10.3233/ JAD
-160564, PubMed: 28059782
Melzer, T. R., Keenan, R.. J., Leeper, G. J., Kingston-Smith, S., Felton,
S. UN., Vert, S. K., … Myall, D. J.. (2020). Test-retest reliability and
sample size estimates after MRI scanner relocation. NeuroImage,
211, 116608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020
.116608, PubMed: 32032737
Meyer, S., Mueller, K., Stuke, K., Bisenius, S., Diehl-Schmid, J.,
Jessen, F., … Schroeter, M.. L. (2017). Predicting behavioral variant
frontotemporal dementia with pattern classification in multi-center
structural MRI data. NeuroImage: Clinique, 14, 656–662. https://est ce que je
.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2017.02.001, PubMed: 28348957
Moguilner, S., García, UN. M., Perl, Oui. S., Tagliazucchi, E., Piguet, O.,
Kumfor, F., … Ibáñez, UN. (2021). Dynamic brain fluctuations out-
perform connectivity measures and mirror pathophysiological
profiles across dementia subtypes: A multicenter study. Neuro-
Image, 225, 117522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020
.117522, PubMed: 33144220
Mohanty, R., Sethares, W. UN., Naïr, V. UN., & Prabhakaran, V. (2020).
Rethinking measures of functional connectivity via feature
extraction. Rapports scientifiques, 10, 1298. https://est ce que je.org/10.1038
/s41598-020-57915-w, PubMed: 31992762
Möller, C., Hafkemeijer, UN., Pijnenburg, Oui. UN. L., Rombouts,
S. UN. R.. B., van der Grond, J., Dopper, E., … van der Flier,
W. M.. (2015). Joint assessment of white matter integrity, cortical
and subcortical atrophy to distinguish AD from behavioral vari-
ant FTD: A two-center study. NeuroImage: Clinique, 9, 418–429.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2015.08.022, PubMed: 26594624
Montavon, G., Samek, W., & Müller, K.-R. (2018). Methods for
interpreting and understanding deep neural networks. Digital Signal
Processing, 73, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsp.2017.10.011
Moral-Rubio, C., Balugo, P., Fraile-Pereda, UN., Pytel, V., Fernández-
Romero, L., Delgado-Alonso, C., … Ayala, J.. L. (2021).
Application of machine learning to electroencephalography for
the diagnosis of primary progressive aphasia: A pilot study. Cerveau
les sciences, 11, 1262. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11101262,
PubMed: 34679327
Mori, S., & van Zijl, P.. C. M.. (2002). Fiber tracking: Principles and
strategies—A technical review. NMR in Biomedicine, 15,
468–480. https://doi.org/10.1002/nbm.781, PubMed: 12489096
Mueller, K., Mildner, T., Fritz, T., Lepsien, J., Schwarzbauer, C.,
Schroeter, M.. L., & Möller, H. E. (2011). Investigating brain
response to music: A comparison of different fMRI acquisition
schemes. NeuroImage, 54, 337–343. https://est ce que je.org/10.1016/j
.neuroimage.2010.08.029, PubMed: 20728550
Müller, UN. C., & Guido, S. (2016). Introduction to machine learning
with Python: A guide for data scientists. Sebastopol, Californie: OʼReilly
Médias.
Nguyen, T., Bertoux, M., OʼCallaghan, C., Ahmed, S., Hodges, J.. R.,
& Hornberger, M.. (2013). Grey and white matter brain network
changes in frontotemporal dementia subtypes. Translational
Neurosciences, 4, 410–418. https://doi.org/10.2478/s13380-013
-0141-2
Nicholls, H. L., John, C. R., Watson, D. S., Munroe, P.. B., Barnes,
M.. R., & Cabrera, C. P.. (2020). Reaching the end-game for
GWAS: Machine learning approaches for the prioritization of
complex disease loci. Frontiers in Genetics, 11, 350. https://est ce que je
.org/10.3389/fgene.2020.00350, PubMed: 32351543
Nieto-Castanon, UN. (2020). Handbook of functional connectivity
magnetic resonance imaging methods in CONN. Boston, MA:
Hilbert Press. https://doi.org/10.56441/hilbertpress.2207.6598
Noble, S., Scheinost, D., Finn, E. S., Shen, X., Papademetris, X.,
McEwen, S. C., … Constable, R.. T. (2017un). Multisite reliability of
MR-based functional connectivity. NeuroImage, 146, 959–970.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.10.020, PubMed:
27746386
Noble, S., Spann, M.. N., Tokoglu, F., Shen, X., Constable, R.. T., &
Scheinost, D. (2017b). Influences on the test-retest reliability of
functional connectivity MRI and its relationship with behavioral
utility. Cortex cérébral, 27, 5415–5429. https://est ce que je.org/10.1093
/cercor/bhx230, PubMed: 28968754
Oishi, K., Zilles, K., Amunts, K., Faria, UN., Jiang, H., Li, X., … Mori,
S. (2008). Human brain white matter atlas: Identification and
assignment of common anatomical structures in superficial white
matter. NeuroImage, 43, 447–457. https://est ce que je.org/10.1016/j
.neuroimage.2008.07.009, PubMed: 18692144
Olney, N. T., Spina, S., & Miller, B. L. (2017). Frontotemporal
dementia. Cliniques neurologiques, 35, 339–374. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1016/j.ncl.2017.01.008, PubMed: 28410663
Ossenkoppele, R., Forgeron, R., Mattsson-Carlgren, N., Groot, C.,
Leuzy, UN., Strandberg, O., … Hansson, Ô. (2021). Accuracy of tau
positron emission tomography as a prognostic marker in preclinical
and prodromal Alzheimer disease: A head-to-head comparison
against amyloid positron emission tomography and magnetic
resonance imaging. JAMA Neurology, 78, 961–971. https://est ce que je
.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.1858, PubMed: 34180956
Parc, B., Choi, B. J., Lee, H., Jang, J.. H., Roh, H. W., Kim, E. Y., …
Yoon, D. (2022). Modeling brain volume using deep learning-
based physical activity features in patients with dementia. Fron-
tiers in Neuroinformatics, 16, 795171. https://doi.org/10.3389
/fninf.2022.795171, PubMed: 35356447
Neurosciences en réseau
347
je
D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d
F
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
je
r
e
c
t
.
m
je
t
.
t
/
/
e
d
toi
n
e
n
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d
je
F
/
/
/
/
/
7
1
3
2
2
2
0
7
2
0
5
2
n
e
n
_
un
_
0
0
2
8
5
p
d
.
t
F
b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Brain network multiclass characterization of frontotemporal dementias
Peet, B. T., Spina, S., Mundada, N., & La Joie, R.. (2021). Neuroim-
aging in frontotemporal dementia: Heterogeneity and relation-
ships with underlying neuropathology. Neurotherapeutics, 18,
728–752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13311-021-01101-x,
PubMed: 34389969
Pereira, F., Mitchell, T., & Botvinick, M.. (2009). Machine learning
classifiers and fMRI: A tutorial overview. NeuroImage, 45,
S199–S209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.11.007,
PubMed: 19070668
Pievani, M., de Haan, W., Wu, T., Seeley, W. W., & Frisoni, G. B.
(2011). Functional network disruption in the degenerative
dementias. La neurologie du Lancet, 10, 829–843. https://doi.org
/10.1016/S1474-4422(11)70158-2, PubMed: 21778116
Poldrack, R.. UN., Huckins, G., & Varoquaux, G. (2019). Establish-
ment of best practices for evidence for prediction: A review.
JAMA Psychiatry, 77, 534–540. https://doi.org/10.1001
/jamapsychiatry.2019.3671, PubMed: 31774490
Popal, H., Quimby, M., Hochberg, D., Dickerson, B. C., & Collins,
J.. UN. (2020). Altered functional connectivity of cortical networks
in semantic variant primary progressive aphasia. NeuroImage:
Clinique, 28, 102494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2020
.102494, PubMed: 33395985
Premi, E., Cauda, F., Costa, T., Diano, M., Gazzina, S., Gualeni, V.,
… Borroni, B. (2016). Looking for neuroimaging markers in
frontotemporal lobar degeneration clinical trials: A multi-voxel
pattern analysis study in Granulin disease. Journal of Alzheimerʼs
Disease, 51, 249–262. https://doi.org/10.3233/ JAD-150340,
PubMed: 26836150
Rascovsky, K., & Grossman, M.. (2013). Clinical diagnostic criteria
and classification controversies in frontotemporal lobar degener-
ation. International Review of Psychiatry, 25, 145–158. https://
doi.org/10.3109/09540261.2013.763341, PubMed: 23611345
Rascovsky, K., Hodges, J.. R., Knopman, D., Mendez, M.. F., Kramer,
J.. H., Neuhaus, J., … Miller, B. L. (2011). Sensitivity of revised
diagnostic criteria for the behavioural variant of frontotemporal
dementia. Cerveau, 134, 2456–2477. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain
/awr179, PubMed: 21810890
Reyes, P., Ortega-Merchan, M.. P., Rueda, UN., Uriza, F., Santamaria-
García, H., Rojas-Serrano, N., … Matallana, D. (2018).
Functional connectivity changes in behavioral, semantic, et
nonfluent variants of frontotemporal dementia. Behavioural Neu-
rology, 2018, 9684129. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9684129,
PubMed: 29808100
Rohan, V., Chaney, G. UN. S., Deright, J., & Onyike, C. U. (2019). UN
meta-analysis of neuropsychological, social cognitive, and olfac-
tory functioning in the behavioral and language variants of fron-
totemporal dementia. Psychological Medicine, 49, 2669–2680.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291718003604, PubMed:
30520407
Rosenthal, J.. UN. (1996). Qualitative descriptors of strength of asso-
ciation and effect size. Journal of Social Service Research, 21,
37–59. https://doi.org/10.1300/J079v21n04_02
Rubinov, M., & Sporns, Ô. (2010). Complex network measures of
brain connectivity: Uses and interpretations. NeuroImage, 52,
1059–1069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.003,
PubMed: 19819337
Saba, V., Premi, E., Cristillo, V., Gazzina, S., Palluzzi, F., Zanetti,
O., … Grassi, M.. (2019). Brain connectivity and information-flow
breakdown revealed by a minimum spanning tree-based analysis
of MRI data in behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia. Fron-
tiers in Neuroscience, 13, 211. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins
.2019.00211, PubMed: 30930736
Salvatore, C., Cerasa, UN., Castiglioni, JE., Gallivanone, F., Augimeri,
UN., Lopez, M., … Quattrone, UN. (2014). Machine learning on
brain MRI data for differential diagnosis of Parkinsonʼs disease
and progressive supranuclear palsy. Journal des neurosciences
Methods, 222, 230–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth
.2013.11.016, PubMed: 24286700
Santillo, UN. F., Martensson, J., Lindberg, O., Nilsson, M., Manzouri, UN.,
Landqvist Waldö, M., … Nilsson, C. (2013). Diffusion tensor tracto-
graphy versus volumetric imaging in the diagnosis of behavioral
variant frontotemporal dementia. PLoS One, 8, e66932. https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066932, PubMed: 23874403
Schwartzman, B. UN., Dougherty, R.. F., & Taylor, J.. E. (2008). False
discovery rate analysisof brain diffusion. The Annals of Applied
Statistics, 2, 153–175. https://doi.org/10.1214/07-AOAS133,
PubMed: 35388313
Sedeño, L., Couto, B., García-Cordero, JE., Melloni, M., Baez, S.,
Sepúlveda, J.. P.. M., … Ibañez, UN. (2016). Brain network organiza-
tion and social executive performance in frontotemporal demen-
tia. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 22,
250–262. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617715000703,
PubMed: 26888621
Sedeño, L., Piguet, O., Abrevaya, S., Desmaras, H., García-
Cordero, JE., Baez, S., … Ibañez, UN. (2017). Tackling variability:
A multicenter study to provide a gold-standard network
approach for frontotemporal dementia. Human Brain Mapping,
38, 3804–3822. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.23627, PubMed:
28474365
Seeley, W. W., Crawford, R., Rascovsky, K., Kramer, J.. H., Weiner,
M., Miller, B. L., & Gorno-Tempini, M.. L. (2008). Frontal paralim-
bic network atrophy in very mild behavioral variant frontotempo-
ral dementia. Archives of Neurology, 65, 249–255. https://doi.org
/10.1001/archneurol.2007.38, PubMed: 18268196
Seeley, W. W., Crawford, R.. K., Zhou, J., Miller, B. L., & Greicius,
M.. D. (2009). Neurodegenerative diseases target large-scale
human brain networks. Neurone, 62, 42–52. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1016/j.neuron.2009.03.024, PubMed: 19376066
Sheelakumari, R., Bineesh, C., Varghese, T., Kesavadas, C., &
Verghese, J.. (2020). Neuroanatomical correlates of apathy and
disinhibition in behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia.
Brain Imaging and Behavior, 14, 2004–2011. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1007/s11682-019-00150-3, PubMed: 31273672
Forgeron, S. M., & Nichols, T. E. (2009). Threshold-free cluster
enhancement: Addressing problems of smoothing, threshold
dependence and localisation in cluster inference. NeuroImage,
44, 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.03.061,
PubMed: 18501637
Sporns, Ô. (2010). Networks of the brain. Cambridge, MA: AVEC
Presse. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8476.001.0001
Sporns, Ô. (2018). Graph theory methods: Applications in brain
réseaux. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 20, 111–121.
https://doi.org/10.31887/ DCNS.2018.20.2/osporns, PubMed:
30250388
Staffaroni, UN. M., Ljubenkov, P.. UN., Kornak, J., Cobigo, Y., Datta, S.,
Marx, G., … Rosen, H. J.. (2019). Longitudinal multimodal
Neurosciences en réseau
348
je
D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d
F
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
je
r
e
c
t
.
m
je
t
.
/
t
/
e
d
toi
n
e
n
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d
je
F
/
/
/
/
/
7
1
3
2
2
2
0
7
2
0
5
2
n
e
n
_
un
_
0
0
2
8
5
p
d
t
.
F
b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Brain network multiclass characterization of frontotemporal dementias
imaging and clinical endpoints for frontotemporal dementia clin-
ical trials. Cerveau, 142(2), 443–459. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain
/awy319, PubMed: 30698757
Tahmasian, M., Shao, J., Meng, C., Grimmer, T., Diehl-Schmid, J.,
Yousefi, B. H., … Sorg, C. (2016). Based on the network degen-
eration hypothesis: Separating individual patients with different
neurodegenerative syndromes in a preliminary hybrid PET/MR
étude. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 57, 410–415. https://est ce que je
.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.165464, PubMed: 26585059
Torlay, L., Perrone-Bertolotti, M., Thomas, E., & Baciu, M.. (2017).
Machine learning–XGBoost analysis of language networks to
classify patients with epilepsy. Brain Informatics, 4, 159–169.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40708-017-0065-7, PubMed: 28434153
Torralva, T., Roca, M., Gleichgerrcht, E., López, P., & Manes, F.
(2009). INECO Frontal Screening (IFS): A brief, sensitive, et
specific tool to assess executive functions in dementia. Journal
of the International Neuropsychological Society, 15, 777–786.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617709990415, PubMed:
19635178
Torso, M., Bozzali, M., Cercignani, M., Jenkinson, M., & Chance,
S. UN. (2020). Using diffusion tensor imaging to detect cortical
changes in fronto-temporal dementia subtypes. Scientific
Reports, 10, 11237. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-68118
-8, PubMed: 32641807
Torso, M., Ridgway, G. R., Jenkinson, M., & Chance, S. (2021).
Intracortical diffusion tensor imaging signature of microstructural
changes in frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Alzheimer’s
Research and Therapy, 13, 180. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195
-021-00914-4, PubMed: 34686217
Tournier, J.-D. (2010). The biophysics of crossing fibers. In D. K.
Jones (Ed.), Diffusion MRI: Theory, méthodes, and application
(pp. 465–482). Oxford, ROYAUME-UNI: Presse universitaire d'Oxford. https://est ce que je
.org/10.1093/med/9780195369779.003.0028
Tovar-Moll, F., de Oliveira-Souza, R., Bramati, je. E., Zahn, R.,
Cavanagh, UN., Tierney, M., … Grafman, J.. (2014). White matter
tract damage in the behavioral variant of frontotemporal and cor-
ticobasal dementia syndromes. PLoS One, 9(7), e102656. https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102656, PubMed: 25054218
Tsai, R.. M., Bejanin, UN., Lesman-Segev, O., La Joie, R., Visani, UN.,
Bourakova, V., … Rabinovici, G. D. (2019). 18F-flortaucipir
(AV-1451) tau PET in frontotemporal dementia syndromes.
Alzheimerʼs Research and Therapy, 11, 13. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1186/s13195-019-0470-7, PubMed: 30704514
Tzourio-Mazoyer, N., Landeau, B., Papathanassiou, D., Crivello, F.,
Etard, O., Delcroix, N., … Joliot, M.. (2002). Automated anatomical
labeling of activations in SPM using a macroscopic anatomical
parcellation of the MNI MRI single-subject brain. NeuroImage,
15, 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2001.0978,
PubMed: 11771995
Upadhyay, N., Suppa, UN., Piattella, M.. C., Bologna, M., Di Stasio,
F., Formica, UN., … Pantano, P.. (2016). MRI gray and white matter
measures in progressive supranuclear palsy and corticobasal syn-
drome. Journal of Neurology, 263, 2022–2031. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1007/s00415-016-8224-y, PubMed: 27411806
van Wijk, B. C. M., Stam, C. J., & Daffertshofer, UN. (2010). Compar-
ing brain networks of different size and connectivity density
using graph theory. PLoS One, 5, e13701. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1371/journal.pone.0013701, PubMed: 21060892
Venkatraman, E. S. (2000). A permutation test to compare receiver
operating characteristic curves. Biometrics, 56, 1134–1138.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.01134.x, PubMed:
11129471
Veraart, J., Fieremans, E., & Novikov, D. S. (2016). Diffusion MRI
noise mapping using random matrix theory. Magnetic Resonance
in Medicine, 76, 1582–1593. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm
.26059, PubMed: 26599599
Wade, C. (2020). Hands-on gradient boosting with XGBoost and
scikit-learn: Perform accessible machine learning and extreme
gradient boosting with Python. Birmingham, ROYAUME-UNI: Packt Publishing.
Whitfield-Gabrieli, S., & Nieto-Castanon, UN. (2012). Connecticut: A func-
tional connectivity toolbox for correlated and anticorrelated
brain networks. Brain Connectivity, 2, 125–141. https://doi.org
/10.1089/brain.2012.0073, PubMed: 22642651
Whitwell, J.. L. (2019). Neuroimaging across the FTD spectrum. In J. T.
Becker & UN. D. Cohen (Éd.), Progress in molecular biology and trans-
lational science (Vol. 165, pp. 187–223). Academic Press. https://est ce que je
.org/10.1016/bs.pmbts.2019.05.009, PubMed: 31481163
Whitwell, J.. L., Avula, R., Master, UN., Vemuri, P., Senjem, M.. L.,
Jones, D. T., … Josephs, K. UN. (2011un). Disrupted thalamocortical
connectivity in PSP: A resting-state fMRI, DTI, and VBM study.
Parkinsonism and Related Disorders, 17, 599–605. https://est ce que je
.org/10.1016/j.parkreldis.2011.05.013, PubMed: 21665514
Whitwell, J.. L., Avula, R., Senjem, M.. L., Kantarci, K., Weigand,
S. D., Samikoglu, UN., … Jack, C. R.. (2010un). Gray and white mat-
ter water diffusion in the syndromic variants of frontotemporal
dementia. Neurologie, 74, 1279–1287. https://doi.org/10.1212
/ WNL.0b013e3181d9edde, PubMed: 20404309
Whitwell, J.. L., Jack, C. R., Boeve, B. F., Parisi, J.. E., Ahlskog, J.. E.,
Drubach, D. UN., … Josephs, K. UN. (2010b). Imaging correlates of
pathology in corticobasal syndrome. Neurologie, 75, 1879–1887.
https://doi.org/10.1212/ WNL.0b013e3181feb2e8, PubMed:
21098403
Whitwell, J.. L., Joseph, K. UN., Avula, R., Tosakulwong, N.,
Weigand, S. D., Senjem, M.. L., … Jack, C. R.. (2011b). Altered
functional connectivity in asymptomatic MAPT subjects A com-
parison to bvFTD. Neurologie, 77, 866–874. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1212/ WNL.0b013e31822c61f2, PubMed: 21849646
Whitwell, J.. L., Przybelski, S. UN., Weigand, S. D., Ivnik, R.. J.,
Vemuri, P., Gunter, J.. L., … Josephs, K. UN. (2009). Distinct anatom-
ical subtypes of the behavioural variant of frontotemporal
dementia: A cluster analysis study. Cerveau, 132, 2932–2946.
https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awp232, PubMed: 19762452
Whitwell, J.. L., Schwarz, C. G., Reid, R.. JE., Kantarci, K., Jack, C. R.,
& Joseph, K. UN. (2014). Diffusion tensor imaging comparison of
progressive supranuclear palsy and corticobasal syndromes.
Parkinsonism and Related Disorders, 20, 493–498. https://est ce que je
.org/10.1016/j.parkreldis.2014.01.023, PubMed: 24656943
Wilcox, R.. (2017). Introduction to robust estimation and hypothesis
testing. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
Wolpe, N., Moore, J.. W., Rae, C. L., Rittman, T., Altena, E.,
Haggard, P., & Rowe, J.. B. (2014). The medial frontal-prefrontal
network for altered awareness and control of action in corticoba-
sal syndrome. Cerveau, 137, 208–220. https://est ce que je.org/10.1093
/brain/awt302, PubMed: 24293266
Xuan, P., Sun, C., Zhang, T., Ye, Y., Shen, T., & Dong, Oui. (2019).
Gradient boosting decision tree-based method for predicting
Neurosciences en réseau
349
je
D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d
F
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
je
r
e
c
t
.
m
je
t
.
t
/
/
e
d
toi
n
e
n
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d
je
F
/
/
/
/
/
7
1
3
2
2
2
0
7
2
0
5
2
n
e
n
_
un
_
0
0
2
8
5
p
d
t
.
F
b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Brain network multiclass characterization of frontotemporal dementias
interactions between target genes and drugs. Frontiers in Genetics,
10, 459. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2019.00459, PubMed:
31214240
Lequel, H., Long, X. Y., Lequel, Y., Yan, H., Zhu, C. Z., Zhou, X. P., …
Gong, Q. Oui. (2007). Amplitude of low frequency fluctuation
within visual areas revealed by resting-state functional MRI. Neu-
roImage, 36, 144–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage
.2007.01.054, PubMed: 17434757
Yeh, F.-C., Liu, L., Hitchens, T. K., & Wu, Oui. L. (2017). Cartographie
immune cell infiltration using restricted diffusion MRI. Magnetic
Resonance in Medicine, 77, 603–612. https://doi.org/10.1002
/mrm.26143, PubMed: 26843524
Yeh, F.-C., Panesar, S., Barrios, J., Fernandes, D., Abhinav, K.,
Meola, UN., & Fernandez-Miranda, J.. C. (2019un). Automatic
removal of false connections in diffusion MRI tractography using
topology-informed pruning (TIP). Neurotherapeutics, 16, 52–58.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13311-018-0663-y, PubMed: 30218214
Yeh, F.-C., Panesar, S., Fernandes, D., Meola, UN., Yoshino, M.,
Fernandez-Miranda, J.. C., … Verstynen, T. D. (2018). Popula-
tion-averaged atlas of the macroscale human structural connec-
tome and its network topology. NeuroImage, 178, 57–68. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.05.027 , PubMed:
29758339
Yeh, F.-C., & Tseng, W.-Y. je. (2011). NTU-90: A high angular reso-
lution brain atlas constructed by q-space diffeomorphic recon-
struction. NeuroImage, 58, 91–99. https://est ce que je.org/10.1016/j
.neuroimage.2011.06.021, PubMed: 21704171
Yeh, F.-C., Verstynen, T. D., Wang, Y., Fernández-Miranda, J.. C., &
Tseng, W.-Y. je. (2013). Deterministic diffusion fiber tracking
improved by quantitative anisotropy. PLoS One, 8, e80713.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0080713, PubMed:
24348913
Yeh, F.-C., Wedeen, V. J., & Tseng, W.-Y. je. (2010). Generalized
q-sampling imaging. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 29,
1626–1635. https://doi.org/10.1109/ TMI.2010.2045126,
PubMed: 20304721
Yeh, F.-C., Zaydan, je. M., Suski, V. R., Lacomis, D., Richardson,
R.. M., Maroon, J.. C., & Barrios-Martinez, J.. (2019b). Differential
tractography as a track-based biomarker for neuronal injury.
NeuroImage, 202, 116131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage
.2019.116131, PubMed: 31472253
Younes, K., & Miller, B. L. (2020). Neuropsychiatric aspects of fron-
totemporal dementia. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 43,
345–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psc.2020.02.005, PubMed:
32439026
Yu, J., & Lee, T. M.. C. (2019). The longitudinal decline of white
matter microstructural integrity in behavioral variant frontotem-
poral dementia and its association with executive function.
Neurobiology of Aging, 76, 62–70. https://est ce que je.org/10.1016/j
.neurobiolaging.2018.12.005, PubMed: 30703627
Zeng, X., & Luo, G. (2017). Progressive sampling-based Bayesian
optimization for efficient and automatic machine learning model
selection. Health Information Science and Systems, 5, 2. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s13755-017-0023-z, PubMed: 29038732
Zetterberg, H., van Swieten, J.. C., Boxer, UN. L., & Rohrer, J.. D.
(2019). Review: Fluid biomarkers for frontotemporal dementias.
Neuropathology and Applied Neurobiology, 45(1), 81–87.
https://doi.org/10.1111/nan.12530, PubMed: 30422329
Zhang, Y., Schuff, N., Du, A.-T., Rosen, H. J., Kramer, J.. H., Gorno-
Tempini, M.. L., … Weiner, M.. W. (2009). White matter damage in
frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer’s disease measured by
diffusion MRI. Cerveau, 132, 2579–2592. https://est ce que je.org/10.1093
/brain/awp071, PubMed: 19439421
Zhang, Y., Tartaglia, M.. C., Schuff, N., Chiang, G. C., Ching, C.,
Rosen, H. J., … Weiner, M.. W. (2013). MRI signatures of brain
macrostructural atrophy and microstructural degradation in fron-
totemporal lobar degeneration subtypes. Journal of Alzheimerʼs
Disease, 33, 431–444. https://doi.org/10.3233/ JAD-2012
-121156, PubMed: 22976075
Zheng, H., Yuan, J., & Chen, L. (2017). Short-term load forecasting
using EMD-LSTM neural networks with a XGBoost algorithm for
feature importance evaluation. Energies, 10(8), 1168. https://est ce que je
.org/10.3390/en10081168
Zhou, J., Gennatas, E. D., Kramer, J.. H., Miller, B. L., & Seeley,
W. W. (2012). Predicting regional neurodegeneration from the
healthy brain functional connectome. Neurone, 73, 1216–1227.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.03.004, PubMed:
22445348
Zhou, X., Sakaie, K. E., Debbins, J.. P., Narayanan, S., Fox, R.. J., &
Lowe, M.. J.. (2018). Scan-rescan repeatability and cross-scanner
comparability of DTI metrics in healthy subjects in the
SPRINT-MS multicenter trial. Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 53,
105–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2018.07.011, PubMed:
30048675
Zou, Q.-H., Zhu, C.-Z., Lequel, Y., Zuo, X.-N., Long, X.-Y., Cao, Q.-J.,
… Zang, Y.-F. (2008). An improved approach to detection of
amplitude of low-frequency fluctuation (ALFF) for resting-state
IRMf: Fractional ALFF. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 172,
137–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2008.04.012,
PubMed: 18501969
Neurosciences en réseau
350
je
D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d
F
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
je
r
e
c
t
.
m
je
t
.
/
/
t
e
d
toi
n
e
n
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d
je
F
/
/
/
/
/
7
1
3
2
2
2
0
7
2
0
5
2
n
e
n
_
un
_
0
0
2
8
5
p
d
t
.
F
b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
