Normalization enhances brain network features that predict individual intelligence in children with epilepsy.

Background and Purpose: Architecture of the cerebral network has been shown to associate with IQ in children with epilepsy. However, subject-level prediction on this basis, a crucial step toward harnessing network analyses for the benefit of children with epilepsy, has yet to be achieved. We compared two network normalization strategies in terms of their ability to optimize subject-level inferences on the relationship between brain network architecture and brain function.
Materials and Methods: Patients with epilepsy and resting state fMRI were retrospectively identified. Brain network nodes were defined by anatomic parcellation, first in patient space (nodes defined for each patient) and again in template space (same nodes for all patients). Whole-brain weighted graphs were constructed according to pair-wise correlation of BOLD-signal time courses between nodes. The following metrics were then calculated: clustering coefficient, transitivity, modularity, path length, and global efficiency. Metrics computed on graphs in patient space were normalized to the same metric computed on a random network of identical size. A machine learning algorithm was used to predict patient IQ given access to only the network metrics.
Results: Twenty-seven patients (8-18 years) comprised the final study group. All brain networks demonstrated expected small world properties. Accounting for intrinsic population heterogeneity had a significant effect on prediction accuracy. Specifically, transformation of all patients into a common standard space as well as normalization of metrics to those computed on a random network both substantially outperformed the use of non-normalized metrics.
Conclusion: Normalization contributed significantly to accurate subject-level prediction of cognitive function in children with epilepsy. These findings support the potential for quantitative network approaches to contribute clinically meaningful information in children with neurological disorders.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.