title: The potential of the human connectome as a biomarker of brain disease.
abstract: The human connectome at the level of fiber tracts between brain regions has been shown to differ in patients with brain disorders compared to healthy control groups. Nonetheless, there is a potentially large number of different network organizations for individual patients that could lead to cognitive deficits prohibiting correct diagnosis. Therefore changes that can distinguish groups might not be sufficient to diagnose the disease that an individual patient suffers from and to indicate the best treatment option for that patient. We describe the challenges introduced by the large variability of connectomes within healthy subjects and patients and outline three common strategies to use connectomes as biomarkers of brain diseases. Finally, we propose a fourth option in using models of simulated brain activity (the dynamic connectome) based on structural connectivity rather than the structure (connectome) itself as a biomarker of disease. Dynamic connectomes, in addition to currently used structural, functional, or effective connectivity, could be an important future biomarker for clinical applications.
authors: 1School of Computing Science, Newcastle University Newcastle upon Tyne, UK ; 2Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University Newcastle upon Tyne, UK ; 3Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Seoul National University Seoul, South Korea.
authors: Marcus
authors: M
authors: Kaiser
keywords: brain connectivity; brain disorders; classification; diagnosis; network disease
references: Nat Rev Neurosci. 2011 Jan;12(1):43-56
references: 21170073
references: Science. 2010 Nov 26;330(6008):1198-201
references: 21109663
references: J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2012 May;53(5):510-8
references: 22067053
references: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015 Apr 19;370(1666):
references: 25750229
references: Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009 Mar;10(3):186-98
references: 19190637
references: Brain Connect. 2011;1(3):169-83
references: 22433046
references: Neuroimage. 2012 Oct 1;62(4):2296-314
references: 22387165
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2002 Oct 1;6(10):416-421
references: 12413574
references: J Neurosci. 2012 Mar 21;32(12):4307-18
references: 22442092
references: Arch Ital Biol. 2010 Sep;148(3):189-205
references: 21175008
references: Nature. 1992 Jul 9;358(6382):152-5
references: 1614547
references: Nat Rev Neurosci. 2006 Feb;7(2):153-60
references: 16429124
references: Biol Psychiatry. 2010 Jul 1;68(1):61-9
references: 20497901
references: Nat Neurosci. 2001 Sep;4(9):953-7
references: 11528429
references: Cereb Cortex. 1991 Jan-Feb;1(1):1-47
references: 1822724
references: Neuron. 2012 Mar 22;73(6):1204-15
references: 22445347
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 Sep;8(9):418-25
references: 15350243
references: Neuroimage. 2012 Sep;62(3):1342-53
references: 22705375
references: Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2010;6:155-79
references: 17716032
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Jan 5;107(1):338-43
references: 19966298
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Jul 10;109(28):11372-7
references: 22711833
references: PLoS Comput Biol. 2006 Mar;2(3):e22
references: 16557292
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Mar 16;96(6):3257-62
references: 10077671
references: Clin Neurophysiol. 2007 Nov;118(11):2317-31
references: 17900977
references: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1986 Nov 12;314(1165):1-340
references: 22462104
references: Nature. 1997 Jan 23;385(6614):313-8
references: 9002514
references: Cereb Cortex. 2009 Dec;19(12):3001-10
references: 19435708
references: Am J Psychiatry. 2011 Jan;168(1):29-39
references: 20952461
references: Neuroimage. 2011 Aug 1;57(3):892-907
references: 21605688