
==== Front
Biophys Rep
Biophys Rep
swwlxb
Biophysics Reports
2364-3439
2364-3420
Biophysics Reports Editorial Office Beijing China

br-10-4-213
10.52601/bpr.2024.230025
Review
The brain network hub degeneration in Alzheimer’s disease
Jin Suhui 1
Wang Jinhui 123*jinhui.wang.1982@m.scnu.edu.cm

He Yong 456*yong.he@bnu.edu.cn

1 Institute for Brain Research and Rehabilitation, Guangzhou 510631, China
2 Guangdong Key Laboratory of Mental Health and Cognitive Science, Guangzhou 510631, China
3 Center for Studies of Psychological Application, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510631, China
4 IDG/McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Beijing 100875, China
5 National Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning, Beijing 100875, China
6 Beijing Key Laboratory of Brain Imaging and Connectomics, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
jinhui.wang.1982@m.scnu.edu.cm (J. Wang)
yong.he@bnu.edu.cn (Y. He)
31 8 2024
10 4 213229
23 10 2023
26 4 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
The Author(s)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) has been conceptualized as a syndrome of brain network dysfunction. Recent imaging connectomics studies have provided unprecedented opportunities to map structural and functional brain networks in AD. By reviewing molecular, imaging, and computational modeling studies, we have shown that highly connected brain hubs are primarily distributed in the medial and lateral prefrontal, parietal, and temporal regions in healthy individuals and that the hubs are selectively and severely affected in AD as manifested by increased amyloid-beta deposition and regional atrophy, hypo-metabolism, and connectivity dysfunction. Furthermore, AD-related hub degeneration depends on the imaging modality with the most notable degeneration in the medial temporal hubs for morphological covariance networks, the prefrontal hubs for structural white matter networks, and in the medial parietal hubs for functional networks. Finally, the AD-related hub degeneration shows metabolic, molecular, and genetic correlates. Collectively, we conclude that the brain-network-hub-degeneration framework is promising to elucidate the biological mechanisms of network dysfunction in AD, which provides valuable information on potential diagnostic biomarkers and promising therapeutic targets for the disease.

Connectomics
Centrality
Modularity
Graph theory
MRI
Dementia
==== Body
pmcINTRODUCTION

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a progressive, neurodegenerative disease that leads to a successive decline in multiple cognitive domains. Neuroimaging studies indicate that AD-related cognitive deficits are associated with not only focal brain alterations in metabolism, structure, and function but also abnormal connectivity between regions. Thus, AD is increasingly viewed as a disconnection syndrome or a network dysfunctional syndrome (Delbeuck et al. 2003; He et al. 2009a; Sheline and Raichle 2013).

Recent advances in imaging connectomics provide promising tools in mapping the connectivity patterns of human brain networks (Bullmore and Sporns 2009; Filippi et al. 2013; He and Evans 2010; Wang and He 2024). With these approaches, a universal finding in healthy brains is the existence of a specific set of regions that have disproportionately numerous connections with multiple cortical and subcortical areas. These regions, referred to as brain hubs, are predominantly distributed in the medial and lateral prefrontal and parietal cortices and the insula (van den Heuvel and Sporns 2013b). Brain hubs play critical roles in maintaining network integrity and performance to generate and promote mental and cognitive states (Cole et al. 2013; He et al. 2009b; Schmidt et al. 2015), and meanwhile have high rates of metabolism and high energy demands (Liang et al. 2013; Tomasi et al. 2013). Intriguingly, convergent evidence from molecular, neuroimaging, and computational modeling studies suggests that brain hubs are preferentially and heavily targeted in AD as demonstrated by high amyloid-beta (Aβ) deposition (Buckner et al. 2009; Myers et al. 2014), hypo-metabolism (Drzezga et al. 2003; Reiman et al. 1996), and disrupted connectivity (Dai et al. 2015; Drzezga et al. 2011). Furthermore, hub vulnerability manifests even in individuals at high risk for AD, such as patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) (Seo et al. 2013; Sorg et al. 2007; Wang et al. 2013; Yao et al. 2010), carriers of the Apolipoprotein E epsilon 4 allele (APOE ɛ4) (Brown et al. 2011; Chen et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2015a), and cognitively healthy elderly with preclinical AD (Fischer et al. 2015). More importantly, hub disruptions are potentially valuable in distinguishing individuals with AD from healthy elders (Dai et al. 2015; Hojjati et al. 2019; Sui et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2013). These findings provide novel insights into AD pathogenesis and highlight hub disruptions as promising biomarkers in early diagnosis, progression monitoring, and treatment evaluation of the disease.

Herein, we systemically review recent progress made in the identification, mapping, and characterization of human brain network hubs with multi-modal neuroimaging data, focusing especially on the breakdown of hub connectivity in AD. We begin with a brief introduction of basic concepts regarding network hubs, followed by a short summary of primary findings in healthy brains. Then, we provide an elaborate survey of empirical and computational findings on hub degeneration in brain networks in AD and AD-related risk factors. We also briefly discuss the treatment of AD. Finally, future perspectives are presented. In contrast to the general concept of network disorganization in AD, as proposed by several previous reviews (Dai and He 2014; He et al. 2009a; Tijms et al. 2013b), this report distinctively concludes with a brain-network-hub-degeneration (BNHD) framework that a set of highly connected brain hubs are extremely vulnerable in AD in a modality-dependent manner. The spatially selective and modality-dependent brain hub disruptions might revolutionize our views of AD pathogenesis and illuminate diagnostic biomarkers and therapeutic targets.

BACKGROUND

Construction of brain networks and definitions of network hubs

A network comprises a set of nodes and edges linking the nodes. For a brain network, nodes typically represent parcellation units (e.g., regions or voxels) and edges represent inter-nodal structural or functional connectivity estimated with neurophysiological (e.g., electro-encephalography/magneto-encephalography (EEG/MEG)) and neuroimaging (e.g., structural MRI, diffusion MRI, functional MRI, and positron emission tomography (PET)) data (Achard et al. 2006; Bullmore and Sporns 2009; Filippi et al. 2013; Hagmann et al. 2007; He et al. 2007; He and Evans 2010). Regardless of imaging modalities, once brain networks are constructed, a mathematical tool, graph theory, can be used to model the networks as graphs and further reveal their organizational principles. Specifically, nodal centralities are an important subset of measures to capture nodal roles in a network with respect to information communication. For the human brain networks, several centrality measures have been used to identify topologically central sites (i.e., brain hubs), among which nodal degree (Boccaletti et al. 2006), efficiency (Achard and Bullmore 2007), and betweenness (Freeman 1977) are the most frequently used ones, especially in AD studies. Notably, the participant coefficient, which quantifies the extent of a node’s connections to link different modules (Guimera and Nunes Amaral 2005), is increasingly used to detect connector hubs (Hagmann et al. 2008; He et al. 2009b; Power et al. 2013). Figure 1 represents a flowchart for the construction of brain networks with multimodal neuroimaging data and a brief summary of main nodal centrality measures.

Figure 1 A flowchart for constructions of brain networks with multimodal neuroimaging data and characterization of major nodal centrality measures from graph theory. After performing a series of preprocessing steps on multimodal MRI data (A), modality-specific brain features can be extracted from these MRI data, such as cortical thickness from structural MRI data, white matter tracts from diffusion MRI data, and brain dynamics from functional MRI data (B). Based on different mathematical models or statistical methods, the features can be further used to estimate interregional connectivity patterns, which are typically represented by square matrices encoding the connectivity strength between regions (C). A connectivity matrix or network can be mathematically described as a graph, consisting of a collection of nodes and edges (D). For a graph, various centrality measures can be calculated to capture nodal roles from different aspects (E). For example, the nodal degree of a given node is defined as the number of edges linked to the node and reflects the overall connectivity of the node with other nodes in a network. Nodal efficiency and betweenness are both based on the shortest path length, which describes the minimum number of edges needed to travel from one node to another node and reflects the capacity of information communication between nodes. Nodal efficiency is calculated as the inverse of the harmonic mean of the shortest path length between an index node and all other nodes in a network and measures the ability of information propagation between a node and the rest of nodes in the network. Nodal betweenness is calculated as the number of shortest paths between all pairs of other nodes that pass through a given node and captures the influence of the node over information flow between all other nodes in a network. Connectors are nodes that have a homogeneous connectivity distribution with all modules in a graph, where a module is referred to as a set of nodes that are densely connected among them, but sparsely linked with other nodes in a network

Network hubs in healthy brains

For morphological covariance networks derived from structural MRI data, structural brain hubs are predominately located in hetero-modal or unimodal association cortex of the medial and dorsolateral prefrontal, parietal, and temporal regions, paralimbic cortex of the parahippocampal gyrus, the anterior cingulate cortex, and the insula, and the primary motor cortex (Chen et al. 2008; He et al. 2007; Li et al. 2017, 2021; Seidlitz et al. 2018; Tijms et al. 2012; Wang et al. 2016a) (Fig. 2A, left panel). Regarding the structural white-matter networks, a largely similar set of regions is identified, including the medial and lateral parietal and prefrontal cortices, temporal and occipital regions, the insula, and motor-related areas (Crossley et al. 2014; Gong et al. 2009; Hagmann et al. 2008; Li et al. 2013; Yan et al. 2011) (Fig. 2A, middle panel). Moreover, the brain hubs are mutually and densely interconnected to form a rich club organization (van den Heuvel and Sporns 2011), which plays key roles in global communication (van den Heuvel et al. 2012) by spatially embedding the hubs into different brain systems to promote cross-network integration (van den Heuvel and Sporns 2013a). Thus, brain regions with high centralities within the structural core are mainly connector hubs (Hagmann et al. 2008). Notably, despite the comparable hub topography between morphological covariance and white-matter networks, they may reflect different mechanisms (Gong et al. 2012).

Figure 2 Hubs in healthy brains and regions showing centrality decreases and pathological protein aggregates in AD. A For healthy brains, the hub topography was exemplified using three representative studies (morphological (He et al. 2007); whiter-matter (Gong et al. 2009); and functional (Dai et al. 2015)). B To summarize regions that show AD-related centrality decreases across previously published studies, a binary brain map was first generated in the standard MNI space for group comparisons in each study to label regions that show decreased centralities in AD or MCI. The resultant binary maps were then summed according to experimental modalities (morphological (He et al. 2008; Pereira et al. 2016; Tijms et al. 2012; Yao et al. 2010); white-matter (Bai et al. 2012; Daianu et al. 2016; Lo et al. 2010; Shu et al. 2012); and functional (Dai et al. 2015; Li et al. 2016; Liu et al. 2014; Sanabria-Diaz et al. 2013; Seo et al. 2013; Wang et al. 2013; Xiang et al. 2013; Zhao et al. 2012)) and mapped onto the brain surfaces using the BrainNet Viewer (Xia et al. 2013). C Pathological protein aggregates of tau and amyloid in AD as characterized by in vivo PET images. Interestingly, the spreading patterns of tau and amyloid selectively overlap with the topographies of AD-related centrality decreases, implying their distinct contributions to the modality-dependent hub degeneration in AD. Reproduced with permission from (Cho et al. 2016)

Apart from structural brain hubs, many studies explore functional hubs of the human brain networks mainly based on resting-state fMRI. Generally, functional brain hubs overlap well with the structural brain hubs and are predominantly located in the medial and lateral prefrontal and parietal cortices, the anterior cingulate cortex, and the insula (Achard et al. 2006; Buckner et al. 2009; Cole et al. 2010; Du et al. 2015; He et al. 2009b; Liang et al. 2013; Tomasi et al. 2015; van den Heuvel et al. 2008; Zuo et al. 2012) (Fig. 2A, right panel). Additionally, several subcortical structures (e.g., the amygdala, hippocampus, and thalamus) are found to be densely connected functionally (Cole et al. 2010; Liao et al. 2013). In the context of module organization, the functional brain hubs are again shown to be primarily connectors with numerous inter-module connections (He et al. 2009b; Power et al. 2013).

In summary, both convergence and divergence exist in the hub topography between structural and functional brain networks. The most consistent hubs are the medial parietal and prefrontal regions. These regions largely resemble the default mode network (DMN), a set of structurally and functionally interconnected regions with a high metabolism (Buckner et al. 2008; Raichle 2015). This is in line with recent findings that the DMN regions show the highest similarity between their structural and functional connectivity profiles over the brain (Horn et al. 2014). It should be noted that although functional connectivity is largely shaped by structural pathways, there may be no determinant correspondence between them (Park and Friston 2013; Wang et al. 2015b) partly due to redundant alternatives of routing paths (de Vico Fallani et al. 2012; di Lanzo et al. 2012) and transitivity (Zalesky et al. 2012) in functional brain networks. Furthermore, structural connectivity represents physical anatomical pathways, and is relatively stable over time, while functional connectivity reflects statistical interdependences of brain activities, and is a non-stationary dynamic process (Hutchison et al. 2013). All these factors may explain the distinct patterns between structural and functional brain hubs.

DISRUPTION OF BRAIN HUBS IN AD

Disrupted structural brain hubs in AD

To date, several studies have explicitly examined structural brain hubs in morphological covariance or white-matter networks in AD and/or MCI. Using the betweenness centrality at a regional level, He and colleagues first examined AD-related alterations in group-level morphological brain networks derived from structural MRI data (He et al. 2008). AD-related centrality decreases were observed in the temporal and parietal hetero-modal association cortices. Using a similar approach, Yao and colleagues studied patients with MCI, a transitional stage between normal aging and AD (Yao et al. 2010). A contrast of hub spatial distribution indicated that frontal hubs were largely retained while temporal hubs were lost in the patients. Recently, Pereira and colleagues conducted a comprehensive analysis of group-level morphological brain networks across the spectrum of stable MCI patients, early MCI converters, late MCI converters, and AD patients (Pereira et al. 2016). Based on the closeness centrality, significant decreases were consistently observed for all the patient groups in the hippocampus and amygdala. Beyond the abovementioned group-level morphological brain network studies, several studies examined nodal centrality alterations in AD with various single-subject morphological brain network methods. Specifically, using a cube-based correlation method for single-subject morphological brain networks, Tijms and colleagues found AD-related betweenness decreases in the posterior cingulate gyrus, parahippocampal gyrus, lingual gyrus, and bilateral thalamus (Tijms et al. 2013a). Based on the same network construction method, a subsequent study found decreased nodal degree in AD patients in DMN and frontal regions (Shigemoto et al. 2021). A recent study constructed single-subject morphological brain networks on the basis of Jensen-Shannon distance-based similarity, and found that patients with subjective cognitive decline, the first stage of AD, exhibited decreased nodal degree in the supplementary motor area, superior frontal gyrus, and medial orbital gyrus (Xu et al. 2022). In addition, increased nodal degree, efficiency, and betweenness were observed in the frontal, limbic, and central regions in the patients.

Regarding structural hubs derived from white-matter brain networks, Lo and colleagues performed the first analysis of whole-brain fiber tractography networks in AD (Lo et al. 2010). AD-related nodal efficiency decreases were found to be predominantly located in several frontal regions, such as the medial and dorsolateral parts of the superior and middle frontal gyri. Such a pattern was further observed in patients with amnestic MCI (Bai et al. 2012). Interestingly, when focusing on different types of amnestic MCI, the frontal-dominant centrality decrease was mainly observed in multi-domain rather than single-domain patients (Shu et al. 2012). Moreover, frontal centrality decreases were even detectable in SCD (Shu et al. 2018) and cognitively normal subjects with Aβ deposition (Fischer et al. 2015), although conflicting results also existed (Wang et al. 2016b). In addition to decreased centralities in frontal regions, several parietal regions (e.g., the angular gyrus, supramarginal gyrus, and superior parietal gyrus) were identified to show decreased centralities in AD and MCI (Shu et al. 2012). These findings were supported by subsequent findings that rich-club nodes and connections were heavily affected by AD (Daianu et al. 2015, 2016; Yan et al. 2018).

After mapping the abovementioned findings onto the brain surfaces, we observed that the most consistent sites to manifest AD-related centrality decreases were mainly in the medial temporal hubs for morphological brain networks (Fig. 2B, left panel) and in the prefrontal hubs for white-matter brain networks (Fig. 2B, middle panel). This divergent, modality-specific hub degeneration in AD could be due to different biological mechanisms underlying morphological covariance and fiber pathway (Gong et al. 2012) or related to different pathological processes of the disease (see below for further discussion).

Disrupted functional brain hubs in AD

There are several studies to date that have utilized neurophysiological (e.g., EEG/MEG) and neuroimaging (e.g., PET and resting-state fMRI) techniques to study functional brain hubs in AD and MCI. de Hann and colleagues first studied functional brain hubs in AD using MEG data in terms of eigenvector centrality (de Haan et al. 2012c), a measure that captures different layers of network hierarchy by taking into account not only the degree of a node but also the degrees of its neighbors (Lohmann et al. 2010). They found that AD patients showed lower centralities in parietal regions in the beta band. Using the same dataset, they further showed that parietal regions were substantially weakened in their within-module connectivity strength in the beta band in the patients (de Haan et al. 2012b). This was compatible with a subsequent EEG study showing AD-related betweenness centrality decrease of posterior regions in high-frequency bands with increasing disease severity (Engels et al. 2015). However, using functional near-infrared spectroscopy-based spatial constraints as priors for EEG source localization, a recent EEG study found a lower nodal degree in the frontal pole and medial orbitofrontal cortex across all frequency ranges in AD (Li et al. 2019). Utilizing fluorodeoxyglucose PET data to derive region-level metabolic covariance networks, several studies consistently found decreased nodal betweenness in temporal, parietal, and frontal regions in patients with AD (Sanabria-Diaz et al. 2013; Seo et al. 2013). Based on nodal degree, efficiency, and/or betweenness, AD-related centrality decreases in frontal, temporal, and parietal regions were largely reproduced by analyzing region-level functional brain networks derived from resting-state fMRI data (Liu et al. 2014; Xiang et al. 2013; Zhao et al. 2012; Zhou et al. 2021). Notably, a recent MEG study, which found decreased centralities in the hippocampus, posterior part of the DMN, and occipital regions in AD, showed that integrating networks across different frequency bands revealed AD-related centrality alterations that were not observed by analysis of single frequency band (Yu et al. 2017).

In addition to the above channel- or region-level functional brain network studies, several recent resting-state fMRI studies investigated AD-mediated modulation of whole-brain centrality maps at a voxel level. Using the eigenvector centrality, Binnewijzend and colleagues found that AD-related decreases were wholly within the occipital cortex (Binnewijzend et al. 2014). Using the degree of centrality, Dai and colleagues found that highly connected hub regions, especially long-range hubs, were selectively targeted in AD, including the medial and lateral prefrontal and parietal cortices, the insula, and the thalamus (Dai et al. 2015). Moreover, they found greater centrality reductions in posterior parietal hubs with increasing disease severity. The AD-related hub disconnection was largely replicated by two subsequent studies on independent datasets (Li et al. 2016; Sui et al. 2015). Intriguingly, the disruptions of hub connectivity in AD were even evident in MCI regardless of spatial scales (region- or voxel-level analysis) or data modality (PET or resting-state fMRI), especially for posterior parietal hubs (Drzezga et al. 2011; Li et al. 2016; Luo et al. 2021; Sanabria-Diaz et al. 2013; Seo et al. 2013; Sui et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2013; Xiang et al. 2013; Xiong et al. 2021; Zhu et al. 2023). Moreover, the disruptions involved not only intra-module but also inter-module connections (Dai et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2013). Apart from these centrality decreases, it should be noted that many studies reported increased centralities in AD (Luo et al. 2021; Zhu et al. 2023).

When mapping the aforementioned centrality decreases on the brain surfaces, we found that regardless of experimental modalities and centrality measures the most vulnerable sites for AD are the medial parietal hubs (Fig. 2B, right panel).

SPECIFICITY OF BRAIN HUB ALTERATIONS IN AD

As reviewed above, AD is associated with the disruption of highly connected brain hubs. Indeed, brain hub susceptibility has been proposed to be a general mechanism for neuropsychiatric disorders even traumatic brain injury (Crossley et al. 2014; Fagerholm et al. 2015; van den Heuvel and Sporns 2013b). This raises an important question of the specificity of AD-related hub degeneration as summarized in this report. Encouragingly, it appears that different disorders are associated with dysfunction of specific and characteristic subsets of hubs. For example, a meta-study showed that temporal hubs exhibited high lesion probability in AD, whereas lesions in schizophrenia were concentrated in both frontal and temporal hubs (Crossley et al. 2014). This suggests a spatial disassociation of hub vulnerability between different disorders. Further, AD-related hub degeneration seems differentiable from other dementia types, such as the behavioral variant of frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD). As one of the most common types of dementia, bvFTD was consistently reported to involve distinct brain networks from AD (Hafkemeijer et al. 2016; Zhou and Seeley 2014). For instance, bvFTD attenuated the functional connectivity of salience network nodes, while AD reduced the functional connectivity of DMN components (Zhou et al. 2010). This difference may help interpret distinct alterations in global network topology between AD and bvFTD (de Haan et al. 2009).

Beyond across-disease specificity, clinical phenotype is heterogeneous within the spectrum of AD. Broadly, AD can be divided into typical and atypical phenotypes. Typical AD (i.e., late-onset AD) affects about 95% of patients and is characterized by symptom onset after age 65 years. The other 5% of patients develop atypical AD (i.e., early-onset AD) and tend to exhibit their first symptoms before age 65 years. For atypical AD, the most common phenotypes are posterior cortical atrophy, logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia, and frontal variant AD (Warren et al. 2012). Previous studies have shown that different phenotypes of AD are associated with spatially divergent patterns of atrophy, hypo-metabolism, Aβ deposition, and connectivity disruption (Lehmann et al. 2013a, b; Pievani et al. 2014; Warren et al. 2012). In the context of hub degeneration, however, the vast majority of existing studies focus on typical AD. There are extremely limited reports regarding the similarities and differences in the hub degeneration among different phenotypes of AD (Heo et al. 2024; Zhou et al. 2021). In the future, more studies are needed to examine whether hub degeneration can differentiate between different phenotypes of AD. It should be emphasized that the (posterior) DMN regions seem to be commonly affected in all variants of AD (Lehmann et al. 2013b), suggesting the potential to discriminate AD from non-AD dementia. Additionally, the posterior cingulate cortex, a key node of the DMN, exhibited different nodal efficiency of white-matter structural brain networks between MCI and remitted geriatric depression, two AD-related risk factors (Bai et al. 2012).

METABOLIC AND MOLECULAR BASIS OF HUB DEGENERATION IN AD

Neuronal signaling and information exchange and processing consume energy, which can be measured by glucose metabolism with PET or indirectly by cerebral blood flow with arterial spin labeling. The consumption is not evenly distributed in the brain with disproportionately high cerebral blood flow, aerobic glycolysis, and oxidative glucose metabolism in highly connected regions (Liang et al. 2013; Raichle et al. 2001; Tomasi et al. 2013; Vaishnavi et al. 2010). Accumulating evidence indicates that glucose metabolism in the brain is dysfunctional in AD (Yassine et al. 2023). Moreover, the dysfunction is strongly involved in the pathology and the progression of AD (Sato and Morishita 2015). Given the high metabolic demands of brain hub regions, it is reasonable to speculate that the dysfunction of glucose metabolism may play an important role in the emergence and development of the hub degeneration in AD. This speculation is supported by findings of concurrent decreases in glucose metabolism and eigenvector centrality of parietal and occipital cortices in AD (Adriaanse et al. 2016). Notably, a previous study found that the relationship between regional cerebral blood flow and centrality was distance dependent with stronger dependence for long-range than short-range brain hubs (Liang et al. 2013). This may explain why AD preferentially targets long-range connectivity and brain hubs (Dai et al. 2015; Liu et al. 2014). In addition to the glucose metabolism, abnormal lipid metabolism is frequently reported in AD, which is considered an important risk factor for AD (Sato and Morishita 2015; Yassine et al. 2023). However, there are few studies to date that have directly examined the relationship between the dysfunction of lipid metabolism and hub degeneration in AD. Future empirical studies can help gain a comprehensive understanding of the roles of dysfunctional glucose and lipid metabolism in the hub degeneration in AD.

Aβ is an important neuropathological hallmark of AD (Selkoe 2001). Evidence from animal and human imaging studies has shown that continuous high levels of neuronal activity increase Aβ deposition (Bero et al. 2011; Cirrito et al. 2005; Jagust and Mormino 2011). Given the high activity of brain hubs, it is not surprising to find a striking spatial overlap between hub topography in healthy young adults and Aβ deposition in AD patients (Buckner et al. 2009) and a significant association between functional connectivity and Aβ aggregation in the same cohort of AD patients (Myers et al. 2014). Interestingly, a recent longitudinal study found that Aβ accumulation increased in aging mainly in the precuneus, posterior cingulate cortex, superior frontal cortex, and ventromedial prefrontal cortex (Liu et al. 2023). Moreover, brain regions showing faster Aβ accumulation were found to have greater participation coefficients. There is a growing number of studies showing that Aβ deposition exerts detrimental influences on the functional connectivity of brain networks (Bero et al. 2012; Drzezga et al. 2011; Hedden et al. 2009; Lim et al. 2014; Sheline et al. 2010b). Moreover, Aβ deposition lowers cerebral metabolism in regions that largely mirror brain hubs (Drzezga et al. 2011). Given the important role of cerebral metabolism in interregional temporal synchronization (Liang et al. 2013; Tomasi et al. 2013), it is plausible to hypothesize that high-level brain activity in brain hubs promotes Aβ aggregation, which subsequently induces cerebral hypo-metabolism and therefore insufficient energy to form and retain interregional neural synchronization, and ultimately results in cognitive impairments in AD (Koch et al. 2015). Accordingly, Aβ pathology appears to play a key role in functional hub degeneration in AD by directly exerting influence on functional connectivity and/or indirectly modulating metabolic energy supply (Fig. 2C, right panel).

In addition to Aβ, another important histopathological hallmark of AD is the aggregation of phosphorylated microtubule-associated protein tau in neurofibrillary tangles. Earlier postmortem and in vivo studies have consistently shown that the tau aggregation initially appears in the entorhinal cortex of the medial temporal lobe and then spreads to limbic and association areas of parietal and frontal cortices and ultimately to primary cortical regions (Braak et al. 2006; Braak and Braak 1991; Cho et al. 2016). Two recent studies further found that the tau aggregation was mainly concentrated in brain hubs (Frontzkowski et al. 2022; Therriault et al. 2022). Moreover, regional tau aggregation was predicted by connectivity patterns of the human brain and brain regions with high connectivity displayed similar rates of tau changes over time (Therriault et al. 2022). The connectivity-based tau deposition is consistent with previous findings from a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer’s-like tauopathy that the injection of synthetic preformed fibrils resulted in rapid induction of neurofibrillary tangle-like inclusions that propagated from injected sites to connected brain regions (Iba et al. 2013). Based on these previous findings together with the modality-dependent hub degeneration as summarized in this report, we speculate that the spatial disassociation of hub degeneration between imaging modalities may reflect to some extent different stages of the sequential propagation of tau pathology in AD (Fig. 2C, left panel). Particularly, the medial temporal regions are structurally and functionally connected with the medial parietal and prefrontal regions (Greicius et al. 2009), which overlap with brain regions that are consistently found to show functional and structural hub degeneration in AD, such as the posterior cingulate cortex and precuneus. It should be emphasized that although Aβ and tau are likely to exert toxicity via different mechanisms (Small et al. 2001), a complicated interaction was reported between them (Chételat 2013; de Felice et al. 2008). Further, AD is associated with aggregation of pathological TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (Amador-Ortiz et al. 2007; Davidson et al. 2011), which follows essentially different even opposite dissemination patterns (Josephs et al. 2014).

Finally, neuroinflammation is considered the third core pathological feature of AD (Leng and Edison 2021). Previous studies have shown that neuroinflammation is associated with amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles in the brains of AD patients (Ahmad et al. 2019). Moreover, microglial activation in response to inflammatory stimuli is inversely correlated with cognitive performance in AD patients (Edison et al. 2008; Kreisl et al. 2013; Zhang et al. 2024). Recent studies found that microglial activation distributed preferentially along highly connected brain regions in AD (Rauchmann et al. 2022) and was associated with global topological alterations of functional brain networks in AD independent of Aβ deposition (Leng et al. 2023). These preliminary findings imply that neuroinflammation may play an important role in the hub degeneration in AD.

In summary, the modality-dependent hub degeneration in AD may be a consequence of joint effects of abnormalities of various metabolic and molecular processes. Further studies are needed in the future to systematically elucidate the complicated relationships among AD-related metabolic, molecular, and connectional alterations by combining multimodal neuroimaging techniques.

GENETIC INFLUENCES ON BRAIN HUBS IN AD

Previous studies have shown that inter-individual variability in brain network organization is largely attributable to genetic effects (Sinclair et al. 2015; van den Heuvel et al. 2013), particularly for brain hubs (Fornito et al. 2011). APOE ɛ4 is a well-established genetic risk factor for AD (Liu et al. 2013). APOE ε4 appeared to increase Aβ accumulation in the brain (Jack et al. 2015) primarily in the posterior cingulate/precuneus, prefrontal, and lateral temporal and parietal cortices (Drzezga et al. 2009; Reiman et al. 2009). Moreover, APOE ε4 was found to have low cerebral metabolism predominantly in the inferior parietal, lateral temporal, posterior cingulate, and prefrontal regions (Reiman et al. 1996). The APOE ɛ4-induced Aβ increase and metabolic decline spatially resemble each other and largely overlap with those putative functional hubs (Reiman et al. 2005, 2009). Given the metabolic substrate of and negative effects of Aβ accumulation on interregional interactions as discussed above, these regions, as expected, demonstrated disrupted connectivity and centrality decreases in both functional and structural brain networks in APOE ε4 carriers versus non-carriers (Brown et al. 2011; Chen et al. 2015; Machulda et al. 2011; Wang et al. 2015a). These findings signify that APOE ε4 preferentially exerts influences on highly connected hubs in the brain possibly by increasing Aβ deposition and decreasing metabolism in brain hubs, which in turn trigger a sequence of events to eventually result in disrupted connectivity. It is worth pointing out that the relationship between APOE ε4 and Aβ deposition is complicated. A previous study found an independent effect of APOE ε4 on functional connectivity in the absence of Aβ plaque toxicity (Sheline et al. 2010a). Another study found that APOE ε4 and Aβ influenced cognition in an interactive manner (Lim et al. 2013; Mormino et al. 2014). Thus, more studies are needed to expound the roles of APOE ε4 in AD-related hub vulnerability by considering the effects of Aβ deposition. In addition, there are several other genetic risk factors for AD, such as the presenilin 1 mutation (Zhang et al. 2013) and family history (Wang et al. 2012). However, whether and how these risk factors affect hub architecture in AD remains largely unknown.

MODELING AD-RELATED ALTERATIONS IN BRAIN HUBS

Despite the convergent findings of hub vulnerability in AD, the underlying mechanisms are not fully understood. Recent advances in computational modeling bring us new opportunities to understand the origin of hub vulnerability in AD. Based on empirical data, an earlier study found that a targeted attack model, in which connections linking highly connected regions were selectively damaged, was able to predict AD-related network deterioration (Stam et al. 2009). Using a neural mass model to simulate upstream neural activity, a subsequent study further showed that brain hubs were associated with high levels of regional activity, and a neural activity-dependent degeneration model successfully reproduced several neurophysiologic hallmarks typical of AD, such as a loss of long-range synchronization and hub vulnerability (de Haan et al. 2012a). These intriguing findings provide mechanistic insights into the origin of hub vulnerability in AD. However, these models are relatively simple and ignore factors such as misfolded proteins in AD. Considering accumulating evidence for the network degeneration hypothesis of AD (Seeley et al. 2009; Therriault et al. 2022; Zhou et al. 2012), several latter studies developed different network spreading models to characterize pathological protein propagation and deposition processes in AD (Agosta et al. 2015; Brettschneider et al. 2015). These studies showed that the models predicted real patterns of macroscopic atrophy (Raj et al. 2012) and Aβ deposition (Iturria-Medina et al. 2014) in AD. Interestingly, based on an epidemic spreading model, the posterior and anterior cingulate cortices were identified as the most probable source regions for Aβ propagation in AD (Iturria-Medina et al. 2014). In the future, it will be of particular interest to establish variant-specific propagation models for AD, especially to model whether alterations in the posterior DMN hubs converge from or spread to other structures given that these sites manifest AD-related alterations across all variants of the disease (Lehmann et al. 2013b).

TRANSLATIONAL STUDIES OF AD USING BRAIN HUBS AND RELATED CONNECTIVITY

The early detection of AD is crucial for the timely intervention of disease progression to delay or eventually prevent the onset of cognitive impairment and behavioral disability in patients because therapeutic interventions at this stage are likely to be more effective than attempts at reversing neurodegeneration. Therefore, more attention has been directed to the development of objective and reliable biomarkers for early AD diagnosis. To date, various types of in vivo biomarkers have been established to help early diagnosis of AD, such as PET-derived biomarkers, MRI-derived biomarkers, blood-based biomarkers, and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers (Dubois et al. 2023). For example, in the domain of MRI-derived biomarkers gray matter atrophy in the hippocampus is one of the most predictive and sensitive biomarkers for AD (Kehoe et al. 2014). Compared with gray matter atrophy, the disruption of brain connectivity may represent an earlier signature of deleterious effects of AD pathology (D’Amelio and Rossini 2012; Gili et al. 2011; Sheline and Raichle 2013) and thus may be a more sensitive biomarker for early AD detection. Indeed, hub-related connectivity disruptions are increasingly found to be able to differentiate AD patients from controls (Dai et al. 2012, 2015; Greicius et al. 2004; Sui et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2013). Moreover, the disruptions show the potential to distinguish between different stages of AD (Hojjati et al. 2019; Li et al. 2016). These encouraging findings indicate that hubs and related connectivity are promising candidates for the early diagnosis of AD. It should be pointed out that most of the connectivity-based discriminant analyses currently are conducted at a relatively coarse region-level, which may lose important information for the classification. For example, the posteromedial cortex, a site frequently observed to show metabolic, functional, and structural abnormalities in AD, exhibited marked spatial heterogeneity in terms of functional connectivity (Margulies et al. 2009), within which subfields were differentially disrupted in AD (Xia et al. 2014). Thus, AD discrimination may be improved by the analysis of high-resolution brain networks (Wang et al. 2013). Notably, different types of biomarkers may be related to pathological processes at different stages of AD from different perspectives and thus provide complementary information for diagnosing the disease (Bi et al. 2020; Lin et al. 2021; Spasov et al. 2019; Zhang et al. 2023). Given that AD is a highly heterogeneous disease and exhibits high variability in disease progression, a better way for precisely detecting early AD may be to integrate different types of biological biomarkers. Nevertheless, biomarkers alone may not be sufficient to inform AD diagnosis and should be treated as a supplement to clinical assessment to support or confirm clinical diagnosis (Lin et al. 2021).

HUB-DIRECTED TREATMENT OF AD

Currently, drug treatment is the first-line treatment for AD. However, drug treatment provides limited therapeutic benefits for patients. Moreover, the long-term safety and efficacy of drug treatment are unclear (Graham et al. 2017). In recent years, various neuromodulation techniques, particularly those non-invasive ones, have received considerable attention in the treatment of AD, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation. It has been reported that these techniques can alleviate cognitive impairment and behavioral and psychological symptoms in AD patients (Hu et al. 2022; Kotlarz et al. 2022; Menardi et al. 2022; Wei et al. 2023; Yan et al. 2023; Yu et al. 2021). These findings indicate that neuromodulation techniques can serve as important alternative treatment options for AD. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the use of neuromodulation techniques in AD treatment is still debated due to considerable heterogeneity across studies and protocols (Buss et al. 2019; Dong et al. 2018). Previous studies have shown that the efficacy of neuromodulation techniques is influenced by many factors, among which the choice of target site is one of the most important factors (Wassermann and Lisanby 2001). Since neuromodulation techniques induce not only focal but also network effects beyond the stimulation site (Shafi et al. 2012), it is reasonable to speculate that targeting the brain hub would impact behavior and cognition more than non-hub regions. This speculation is supported by a recent study showing that compared with inhibition of a non-hub area in the right middle frontal gyrus by transcranial magnetic stimulation, inhibition of a hub area in the same gyrus resulted in more disruptions in information processing during working-memory although both targets were separated by only a few centimeters (Lynch et al. 2019). In this context, we argue that brain hubs that are heavily disrupted in AD may serve as promising target sites on which influences can be imposed to maximize the efficacy of neuromodulation techniques in slowing down or even reversing the progress of the disease. This puts forward the demand to develop practical hub-directed therapeutic strategies for AD via neuromodulation techniques.

OPEN QUESTIONS AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVE

This work reviews recent progress on AD-related connectivity disruption of brain hubs, based on which the BNHD hypothesis is proposed for the disease. Although the BNHD hypothesis is conceptually intriguing, there are still many challenging issues that need to be explored.

First, the existing findings of AD-related hub degeneration are mainly from cross-sectional studies of AD and MCI. Follow-up longitudinal studies are required to explore how brain hubs dynamically reorganize as the disease progresses and how the reorganization is related to successive cognitive decline in AD. Particularly, given that the patients studied previously might be in the chronic phase of network reorganization of the disease and hub failure may be a final output regardless of the types of brain disorders (Stam 2014), longitudinal studies including the preclinical AD (e.g., individuals with subjective cognitive decline) can help clarify whether the hub degeneration is due to a secondary process of long-term aggregation of pathological effects in other regions or brain hubs are indeed the starting sites to manifest AD-related alterations. This is essential in the development of hub-based early diagnostic biomarkers and in the establishment of mechanistic links between hub degeneration and cognitive impairments in AD. Insights into this issue can benefit from targeted manipulation of hubs to exploit their roles in maintaining and facilitating brain function with the help of computational modeling of lesion effects (Alstott et al. 2009) and animal models (Oh et al. 2014). The latter is particularly encouraging given the largely shared network topology between humans and other species (van den Heuvel et al. 2016). However, a recent study found that after xenografting human or mouse neurons into the mouse brain of the AD model, only human neurons exhibited phosphorylated tau blood biomarkers and neuronal cell loss (Balusu et al. 2023). These findings indicate a human-specific vulnerability to AD. In view of this, there may be essential differences in the hub degeneration between human and animal models. However, there are few studies to date that have examined the hub degeneration in AD animal models (Kotlarz et al. 2022). In the future, more studies are required to explore hub alterations in AD animal models and further compare the alterations with those derived from AD patients. It should be noted that the chimeric model used by Balusu and colleagues may provide a promising avenue to explore potential human-specific hub degeneration during the course of AD (Balusu et al. 2023).

Second, the majority of functional studies supporting the preferential involvement of hubs in AD are conducted on the basis of brain networks during the resting state. Although the brain’s network organization during tasks is strongly shaped by the network architecture during rest (Cole et al. 2014), the brain hubs and relevant connections are significantly modulated by cognitive states (Cole et al. 2013; Liang et al. 2013, 2016). Considering that multiple cognitive domains are deficient in AD, it is interesting to examine whether hubs, particularly connector hubs, fail in switching their roles to interact with different modules in AD during various tasks, such as memory processing.

Third, the existing studies mainly utilize nodal degree, efficiency, and betweenness to explore brain hubs in AD. Beyond these measures, there are many others that may uncover distinct hub topography (Power et al. 2013; Zuo et al. 2012). Furthermore, hub identification is sensitive to different analytical schemes, such as data preprocessing (Liao et al. 2013; Tomasi et al. 2015), brain parcellation (Wang et al. 2009; Zalesky et al. 2010), connectivity definition (Bastiani et al. 2012; Liang et al. 2012), and network type (Cheng et al. 2012; Cole et al. 2010). In addition, nodal centrality measures show varying test-retest reliability for structural (Wang et al. 2016a; Zhao et al. 2015) and functional (Liao et al. 2013; Wang et al. 2011; Zuo and Xing 2014) brain networks. All these factors challenge the generalizability, reproducibility, and reliability of the current findings. Thus, future studies should comprehensively characterize brain hub architecture in AD by combining multiple centrality measures and multi-modal datasets and taking various processing steps into consideration.

Fourth, there are ongoing advances in both network methodology, such as dynamic network analysis (Zalesky et al. 2014), and imaging sequences, such as multiband accelerated echo planar imaging (Smith et al. 2013). These advances make answering several new and interesting questions possible. For example, by applying dynamic network methods to fMRI data at a subsecond resolution, we can study the temporal evolution of hub spatiotemporal structure (de Pasquale et al. 2016; Liao et al. 2015) and examine AD-related alterations in instantaneous state transitions of hubs.

Finally, the existing findings of AD-related hub degeneration are mainly from scattered studies with differences in samples, demographics, clinical features, imaging parameters, data modalities, network construction methods, and centrality measures. Despite some consistent findings, these differences challenge the comparability between studies. Thus, a more fine-tuned representation of the BNHD in AD is urgently needed. To achieve this, wide-ranging and in-depth international cooperation is encouraged in standardizing data collection and sharing and brain network and connectivity meta-analyses will play a crucial role (Crossley et al. 2016).

Conflict of interest

Suhui Jin, Jinhui Wang and Yong He declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Human and animal rights and informed consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
==== Refs
References

Achard S, Bullmore E Efficiency and cost of economical brain functional networks PLoS Comput Biol 2007 3 2 e17 17274684
Achard S, Salvador R, Whitcher B, Suckling J, Bullmore ED A resilient, low-frequency, small-world human brain functional network with highly connected association cortical hubs J Neurosci 2006 26 1 63 72 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3874-05.2006 16399673
Adriaanse SM, Wink AM, Tijms BM, Ossenkoppele R, Verfaillie SCJ, Lammertsma AA, Boellaard R, Scheltens P, Van Berckel BNM, Barkhof F The association of glucose metabolism and eigenvector centrality in Alzheimer's disease Brain Connect 2016 6 1 1 8 10.1089/brain.2014.0320 26414628
Agosta F, Weiler M, Filippi M Propagation of pathology through brain networks in neurodegenerative diseases: from molecules to clinical phenotypes CNS Neurosci Ther 2015 21 10 754 767 10.1111/cns.12410 26031656
Ahmad MH, Fatima M, Mondal AC (2019) Influence of microglia and astrocyte activation in the neuroinflammatory pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease: rational insights for the therapeutic approaches. J Clin Neurosc 59: 6−11

Alstott J, Breakspear M, Hagmann P, Cammoun L, Sporns O Modeling the impact of lesions in the human brain PLoS Comput Biol 2009 5 6 e1000408 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000408 19521503
Amador‐Ortiz C, Lin WL, Ahmed Z, Personett D, Davies P, Duara R, Graff‐Radford NR, Hutton ML, Dickson DW TDP‐43 immunoreactivity in hippocampal sclerosis and Alzheimer's disease Ann Neurol 2007 61 5 435 445 10.1002/ana.21154 17469117
Bai F, Shu N, Yuan Y, Shi Y, Yu H, Wu D, Wang J, Xia M, He Y, Zhang Z Topologically convergent and divergent structural connectivity patterns between patients with remitted geriatric depression and amnestic mild cognitive impairment J Neurosci 2012 32 12 4307 4318 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5061-11.2012 22442092
Balusu S, Horré K, Thrupp N, Craessaerts K, Snellinx A, Serneels L, T’Syen D, Chrysidou I, Arranz AM, Sierksma A MEG3 activates necroptosis in human neuron xenografts modeling Alzheimer’s disease Science 2023 381 6663 1176 1182 10.1126/science.abp9556 37708272
Bastiani M, Shah NJ, Goebel R, Roebroeck A Human cortical connectome reconstruction from diffusion weighted MRI: the effect of tractography algorithm NeuroImage 2012 62 3 1732 1749 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.06.002 22699045
Bero AW, Bauer AQ, Stewart FR, White BR, Cirrito JR, Raichle ME, Culver JP, Holtzman DM Bidirectional relationship between functional connectivity and amyloid-β deposition in mouse brain J Neurosci 2012 32 13 4334 4340 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5845-11.2012 22457485
Bero AW, Yan P, Roh JH, Cirrito JR, Stewart FR, Raichle ME, Lee J-M, Holtzman DM Neuronal activity regulates the regional vulnerability to amyloid-β deposition Nat Neurosci 2011 14 6 750 756 10.1038/nn.2801 21532579
Bi X-a, Hu X, Wu H, Wang Y Multimodal data analysis of Alzheimer's disease based on clustering evolutionary random forest IEEE J Biomed Health Inform 2020 24 10 2973 2983 10.1109/JBHI.2020.2973324 32071013
Binnewijzend MAA, Adriaanse SM, Van der Flier WM, Teunissen CE, De Munck JC, Stam CJ, Scheltens P, Van Berckel BNM, Barkhof F, Wink AM Brain network alterations in Alzheimer's disease measured by eigenvector centrality in fMRI are related to cognition and CSF biomarkers Hum Brain Mapp 2014 35 5 2383 2393 10.1002/hbm.22335 24039033
Boccaletti S, Latora V, Moreno Y, Chavez M, Hwang DU Complex networks: structure and dynamics Phy Rep 2006 424 4-5 175 308 10.1016/j.physrep.2005.10.009
Braak H, Alafuzoff I, Arzberger T, Kretzschmar H, Del Tredici K Staging of Alzheimer disease-associated neurofibrillary pathology using paraffin sections and immunocytochemistry Acta Neuropathol 2006 112 4 389 404 10.1007/s00401-006-0127-z 16906426
Braak H, Braak E Neuropathological stageing of Alzheimer-related changes Acta Neuropathol 1991 82 4 239 259 10.1007/BF00308809 1759558
Brettschneider J, Tredici KD, Lee VMY, Trojanowski JQ Spreading of pathology in neurodegenerative diseases: a focus on human studies Nat Rev Neurosci 2015 16 2 109 120 10.1038/nrn3887 25588378
Brown JA, Terashima KH, Burggren AC, Ercoli LM, Miller KJ, Small GW, Bookheimer SY Brain network local interconnectivity loss in aging APOE-4 allele carriers Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2011 108 51 20760 20765 10.1073/pnas.1109038108 22106308
Buckner RL, Andrews‐Hanna JR, Schacter DL The brain's default network: anatomy, function, and relevance to disease Ann N Y Acad Sci 2008 1124 1 1 38 10.1196/annals.1440.011 18400922
Buckner RL, Sepulcre J, Talukdar T, Krienen FM, Liu H, Hedden T, Andrews-Hanna JR, Sperling RA, Johnson KA Cortical hubs revealed by intrinsic functional connectivity: mapping, assessment of stability, and relation to Alzheimer's disease J Neurosci 2009 29 6 1860 1873 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5062-08.2009 19211893
Bullmore E, Sporns O Complex brain networks: graph theoretical analysis of structural and functional systems Nat Rev Neurosci 2009 10 3 186 198 10.1038/nrn2575 19190637
Buss SS, Fried PJ, Pascual-Leone A Therapeutic noninvasive brain stimulation in Alzheimer's disease and related dementias Curr Opin Neurol 2019 32 2 292 304 10.1097/WCO.0000000000000669 30720478
Chen Y, Chen K, Zhang J, Li X, Shu N, Wang J, Zhang Z, Reiman EM Disrupted functional and structural networks in cognitively normal elderly subjects with the APOE ɛ4 allele Neuropsychopharmacology 2015 40 5 1181 1191 10.1038/npp.2014.302 25403724
Chen ZJ, He Y, Rosa-Neto P, Germann J, Evans AC Revealing modular architecture of human brain structural networks by using cortical thickness from MRI Cereb Cortex 2008 18 10 2374 2381 10.1093/cercor/bhn003 18267952
Cheng H, Wang Y, Sheng J, Kronenberger WG, Mathews VP, Hummer TA, Saykin AJ Characteristics and variability of structural networks derived from diffusion tensor imaging NeuroImage 2012 61 4 1153 1164 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.03.036 22450298
Chételat G Aβ-independent processes—rethinking preclinical AD Nat Rev Neurol 2013 9 3 123 124 10.1038/nrneurol.2013.21 23399647
Cho H, Choi JY, Hwang MS, Kim YJ, Lee HM, Lee HS, Lee JH, Ryu YH, Lee MS, Lyoo CH In vivo cortical spreading pattern of tau and amyloid in the Alzheimer disease spectrum Ann Neurol 2016 80 2 247 258 10.1002/ana.24711 27323247
Cirrito JR, Yamada KA, Finn MB, Sloviter RS, Bales KR, May PC, Schoepp DD, Paul SM, Mennerick S, Holtzman DM Synaptic activity regulates interstitial fluid amyloid-β levels in vivo Neuron 2005 48 6 913 922 10.1016/j.neuron.2005.10.028 16364896
Cole MW, Bassett DS, Power JD, Braver TS, Petersen SE Intrinsic and task-evoked network architectures of the human brain Neuron 2014 83 1 238 251 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.05.014 24991964
Cole MW, Pathak S, Schneider W Identifying the brain's most globally connected regions NeuroImage 2010 49 4 3132 3148 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.11.001 19909818
Cole MW, Reynolds JR, Power JD, Repovs G, Anticevic A, Braver TS Multi-task connectivity reveals flexible hubs for adaptive task control Nat Neurosci 2013 16 9 1348 1355 10.1038/nn.3470 23892552
Crossley NA, Fox PT, Bullmore ET Meta-connectomics: human brain network and connectivity meta-analyses Psychol Med 2016 46 5 897 907 10.1017/S0033291715002895 26809184
Crossley NA, Mechelli A, Scott J, Carletti F, Fox PT, McGuire P, Bullmore ET The hubs of the human connectome are generally implicated in the anatomy of brain disorders Brain 2014 137 8 2382 2395 10.1093/brain/awu132 25057133
D’Amelio M, Rossini PM Brain excitability and connectivity of neuronal assemblies in Alzheimer's disease: from animal models to human findings Prog Neurobiol 2012 99 1 42 60 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2012.07.001 22789698
Dai Z, He Y (2014) Disrupted structural and functional brain connectomes in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease. Neurosci Bull 30: 217−232

Dai Z, Yan C, Li K, Wang Z, Wang J, Cao M, Lin Q, Shu N, Xia M, Bi Y Identifying and mapping connectivity patterns of brain network hubs in Alzheimer's disease Cereb Cortex 2015 25 10 3723 3742 10.1093/cercor/bhu246 25331602
Dai Z, Yan C, Wang Z, Wang J, Xia M, Li K, He Y Discriminative analysis of early Alzheimer's disease using multi-modal imaging and multi-level characterization with multi-classifier (M3) NeuroImage 2012 59 3 2187 2195 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.10.003 22008370
Daianu M, Jahanshad N, Nir TM, Jack Jr CR, Weiner MW, Bernstein MA, Thompson PM, Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging I Rich club analysis in the Alzheimer's disease connectome reveals a relatively undisturbed structural core network Hum Brain Mapp 2015 36 8 3087 3103 10.1002/hbm.22830 26037224
Daianu M, Mezher A, Mendez MF, Jahanshad N, Jimenez EE, Thompson PM Disrupted rich club network in behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia and early‐onset A lzheimer's disease Hum Brain Mapp 2016 37 3 868 883 10.1002/hbm.23069 26678225
Davidson YS, Raby S, Foulds PG, Robinson A, Thompson JC, Sikkink S, Yusuf I, Amin H, DuPlessis D, Troakes C TDP-43 pathological changes in early onset familial and sporadic Alzheimer’s disease, late onset Alzheimer’s disease and Down’s syndrome: association with age, hippocampal sclerosis and clinical phenotype Acta Neuropathol 2011 122 703 713 10.1007/s00401-011-0879-y 21968532
de Felice FG, Wu D, Lambert MP, Fernandez SJ, Velasco PT, Lacor PN, Bigio EH, Jerecic J, Acton PJ, Shughrue PJ Alzheimer's disease-type neuronal tau hyperphosphorylation induced by Aβ oligomers Neurobiol Aging 2008 29 9 1334 1347 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2007.02.029 17403556
de Haan W, Mott K, Van Straaten ECW, Scheltens P, Stam CJ Activity dependent degeneration explains hub vulnerability in Alzheimer's disease PLoS Comput Biol 2012a 8 8 e1002582 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002582 22915996
de Haan W, Pijnenburg YAL, Strijers RLM, van der Made Y, van der Flier WM, Scheltens P, Stam CJ Functional neural network analysis in frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease using EEG and graph theory BMC Neurosci 2009 10 1 12 10.1186/1471-2202-10-1 19126204
de Haan W, van der Flier WM, Koene T, Smits LL, Scheltens P, Stam CJ Disrupted modular brain dynamics reflect cognitive dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease NeuroImage 2012b 59 4 3085 3093 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.055 22154957
de Haan W, van der Flier WM, Wang H, Van Mieghem PFA, Scheltens P, Stam CJ (2012c) Disruption of functional brain networks in Alzheimer's disease: what can we learn from graph spectral analysis of resting-state magnetoencephalography? Brain Connect 2(2): 45−55

de Pasquale F, Della Penna S, Sporns O, Romani GL, Corbetta M A dynamic core network and global efficiency in the resting human brain Cereb Cortex 2016 26 10 4015 4033 10.1093/cercor/bhv185 26347485
de Vico Fallani F, Toppi J, Di Lanzo C, Vecchiato G, Astolfi L, Borghini G, Mattia D, Cincotti F, Babiloni F Redundancy in functional brain connectivity from EEG recordings Int J Bifurc Chaos 2012 22 07 1250158 10.1142/S0218127412501581
Delbeuck X, Van der Linden M, Collette F (2003) Alzheimer'disease as a disconnection syndrome? Neuropsychol Rev 13: 79−92

di Lanzo C, Marzetti L, Zappasodi F, Fallani FDV, Pizzella V Redundancy as a graph-based index of frequency specific MEG functional connectivity Comput Math Methods Med 2012 2012 207305 10.1155/2012/207305 23118799
Dong X, Yan L, Huang L, Guan X, Dong C, Tao H, Wang T, Qin X, Wan Q Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials PLoS One 2018 13 10 e0205704 10.1371/journal.pone.0205704 30312319
Drzezga A, Becker JA, van Dijk KRA, Sreenivasan A, Talukdar T, Sullivan C, Schultz AP, Sepulcre J, Putcha D, Greve D Neuronal dysfunction and disconnection of cortical hubs in non-demented subjects with elevated amyloid burden Brain 2011 134 6 1635 1646 10.1093/brain/awr066 21490054
Drzezga A, Grimmer T, Henriksen G, Muhlau M, Perneczky R, Miederer I, Praus C, Sorg C, Wohlschlager A, Riemenschneider M Effect of APOE genotype on amyloid plaque load and gray matter volume in Alzheimer disease Neurology 2009 72 17 1487 1494 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181a2e8d0 19339712
Drzezga A, Lautenschlager N, Siebner H, Riemenschneider M, Willoch F, Minoshima S, Schwaiger M, Kurz A Cerebral metabolic changes accompanying conversion of mild cognitive impairment into Alzheimer's disease: a PET follow-up study Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003 30 1104 1113 10.1007/s00259-003-1194-1 12764551
Du HX, Liao XH, Lin QX, Li GS, Chi YZ, Liu X, Yang HZ, Wang Y, Xia MR Test–retest reliability of graph metrics in high-resolution functional connectomics: a resting-state functional MRI study CNS Neurosci Ther 2015 21 10 802 816 10.1111/cns.12431 26212146
Dubois B, von Arnim CAF, Burnie N, Bozeat S, Cummings J Biomarkers in Alzheimer’s disease: role in early and differential diagnosis and recognition of atypical variants Alzheimers Res Ther 2023 15 1 175 10.1186/s13195-023-01314-6 37833762
Edison P, Archer HA, Gerhard A, Hinz R, Pavese N, Turkheimer FE, Hammers A, Tai YF, Fox N, Kennedy A Microglia, amyloid, and cognition in Alzheimer's disease: An [11C](R) PK11195-PET and [11C] PIB-PET study Neurobiol Dis 2008 32 3 412 419 10.1016/j.nbd.2008.08.001 18786637
Engels MMA, Stam CJ, van der Flier WM, Scheltens P, de Waal H, van Straaten ECW Declining functional connectivity and changing hub locations in Alzheimer’s disease: an EEG study BMC Neurol 2015 15 1 8 10.1186/s12883-014-0245-5 25595849
Fagerholm ED, Hellyer PJ, Scott G, Leech R, Sharp DJ Disconnection of network hubs and cognitive impairment after traumatic brain injury Brain 2015 138 6 1696 1709 10.1093/brain/awv075 25808370
Filippi M, van den Heuvel MP, Fornito A, He Y, Pol HEH, Agosta F, Comi G, Rocca MA Assessment of system dysfunction in the brain through MRI-based connectomics Lancet Neurol 2013 12 12 1189 1199 10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70144-3 24120645
Fischer FU, Wolf D, Scheurich A, Fellgiebel A, Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging I Altered whole-brain white matter networks in preclinical Alzheimer's disease NeuroImage Clin 2015 8 660 666 10.1016/j.nicl.2015.06.007 26288751
Fornito A, Zalesky A, Bassett DS, Meunier D, Ellison-Wright I, Yücel M, Wood SJ, Shaw K, O'Connor J, Nertney D Genetic influences on cost-efficient organization of human cortical functional networks J Neurosci 2011 31 9 3261 3270 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4858-10.2011 21368038
Freeman LC A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness Sociometry 1977 40 1 35 41 10.2307/3033543
Frontzkowski L, Ewers M, Brendel M, Biel D, Ossenkoppele R, Hager P, Steward A, Dewenter A, Römer S, Rubinski A Earlier Alzheimer’s disease onset is associated with tau pathology in brain hub regions and facilitated tau spreading Nat Commun 2022 13 1 4899 10.1038/s41467-022-32592-7 35987901
Gili T, Cercignani M, Serra L, Perri R, Giove F, Maraviglia B, Caltagirone C, Bozzali M Regional brain atrophy and functional disconnection across Alzheimer's disease evolution J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2011 82 1 58 66 10.1136/jnnp.2009.199935 20639384
Gong G, He Y, Chen ZJ, Evans AC Convergence and divergence of thickness correlations with diffusion connections across the human cerebral cortex NeuroImage 2012 59 2 1239 1248 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.08.017 21884805
Gong G, He Y, Concha L, Lebel C, Gross DW, Evans AC, Beaulieu C Mapping anatomical connectivity patterns of human cerebral cortex using in vivo diffusion tensor imaging tractography Cereb Cortex 2009 19 3 524 536 10.1093/cercor/bhn102 18567609
Graham WV, Bonito-Oliva A, Sakmar TP Update on Alzheimer's disease therapy and prevention strategies Ann Rev Med 2017 68 413 430 10.1146/annurev-med-042915-103753 28099083
Greicius MD, Srivastava G, Reiss AL, Menon V Default-mode network activity distinguishes Alzheimer's disease from healthy aging: evidence from functional MRI Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2004 101 13 4637 4642 10.1073/pnas.0308627101 15070770
Greicius MD, Supekar K, Menon V, Dougherty RF Resting-state functional connectivity reflects structural connectivity in the default mode network Cereb Cortex 2009 19 1 72 78 10.1093/cercor/bhn059 18403396
Guimera R, Nunes Amaral LA Functional cartography of complex metabolic networks Nature 2005 433 7028 895 900 10.1038/nature03288 15729348
Hafkemeijer A, Möller C, Dopper EGP, Jiskoot LC, van den Berg‐Huysmans AA, van Swieten JC, van der Flier WM, Vrenken H, Pijnenburg YAL, Barkhof F Differences in structural covariance brain networks between behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease Hum Brain Mapp 2016 37 3 978 988 10.1002/hbm.23081 26660857
Hagmann P, Cammoun L, Gigandet X, Meuli R, Honey CJ, Wedeen VJ, Sporns O Mapping the structural core of human cerebral cortex PLoS Biol 2008 6 7 e159 10.1371/journal.pbio.0060159 18597554
Hagmann P, Kurant M, Gigandet X, Thiran P, Wedeen VJ, Meuli R, Thiran J-P Mapping human whole-brain structural networks with diffusion MRI PLoS One 2007 2 7 e597 10.1371/journal.pone.0000597 17611629
He Y, Chen Z, Evans A Structural insights into aberrant topological patterns of large-scale cortical networks in Alzheimer's disease J Neurosci 2008 28 18 4756 4766 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0141-08.2008 18448652
He Y, Chen Z, Gong G, Evans A Neuronal networks in Alzheimer's disease Neuroscientist 2009a 15 4 333 350 10.1177/1073858409334423 19458383
He Y, Chen ZJ, Evans AC Small-world anatomical networks in the human brain revealed by cortical thickness from MRI Cereb Cortex 2007 17 10 2407 2419 10.1093/cercor/bhl149 17204824
He Y, Evans A Graph theoretical modeling of brain connectivity Curr Opin Neurol 2010 23 4 341 350 10.1097/WCO.0b013e32833aa567 20581686
He Y, Wang J, Wang L, Chen ZJ, Yan C, Yang H, Tang H, Zhu C, Gong Q, Zang Y Uncovering intrinsic modular organization of spontaneous brain activity in humans PLoS One 2009b 4 4 e5226 10.1371/journal.pone.0005226 19381298
Hedden T, Van Dijk KRA, Becker JA, Mehta A, Sperling RA, Johnson KA, Buckner RL Disruption of functional connectivity in clinically normal older adults harboring amyloid burden J Neurosci 2009 29 40 12686 12694 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3189-09.2009 19812343
Heo S, Yoon CW, Kim S-Y, Kim W-R, Na DL, Noh Y Alterations of structural network efficiency in early-onset and late-onset Alzheimer’s disease J Clin Neurol 2024 20 3 265 275 10.3988/jcn.2023.0092 38330417
Hojjati SH, Ebrahimzadeh A, Babajani-Feremi A Identification of the early stage of Alzheimer's disease using structural MRI and resting-state fMRI Front Neurol 2019 10 904 10.3389/fneur.2019.00904 31543860
Horn A, Ostwald D, Reisert M, Blankenburg F The structural–functional connectome and the default mode network of the human brain NeuroImage 2014 102 142 151 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.09.069 24099851
Hu Y, Jia Y, Sun Y, Ding Y, Huang Z, Liu C, Wang Y Efficacy and safety of simultaneous rTMS–tDCS over bilateral angular gyrus on neuropsychiatric symptoms in patients with moderate Alzheimer's disease: A prospective, randomized, sham-controlled pilot study Brain Stimul 2022 15 6 1530 1537 10.1016/j.brs.2022.11.009 36460293
Hutchison RM, Womelsdorf T, Allen EA, Bandettini PA, Calhoun VD, Corbetta M, Della Penna S, Duyn JH, Glover GH, Gonzalez-Castillo J Dynamic functional connectivity: promise, issues, and interpretations NeuroImage 2013 80 360 378 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.079 23707587
Iba M, Guo JL, McBride JD, Zhang B, Trojanowski JQ, Lee VMY Synthetic tau fibrils mediate transmission of neurofibrillary tangles in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's-like tauopathy J Neurosci 2013 33 3 1024 1037 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2642-12.2013 23325240
Iturria-Medina Y, Sotero RC, Toussaint PJ, Evans AC, Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging I Epidemic spreading model to characterize misfolded proteins propagation in aging and associated neurodegenerative disorders PLoS Comput Biol 2014 10 11 e1003956 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003956 25412207
Jack CR, Wiste HJ, Weigand SD, Knopman DS, Vemuri P, Mielke MM, Lowe V, Senjem ML, Gunter JL, Machulda MM Age, sex, and APOE ε4 effects on memory, brain structure, and β-amyloid across the adult life span JAMA Neurol 2015 72 5 511 519 10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.4821 25775353
Jagust WJ, Mormino EC Lifespan brain activity, β-amyloid, and Alzheimer's disease Trends Cogn Sci 2011 15 11 520 526 10.1016/j.tics.2011.09.004 21983147
Josephs KA, Murray ME, Whitwell JL, Parisi JE, Petrucelli L, Jack CR, Petersen RC, Dickson DW Staging TDP-43 pathology in Alzheimer’s disease Acta Neuropathol 2014 127 441 450 10.1007/s00401-013-1211-9 24240737
Kehoe EG, McNulty JP, Mullins PG, Bokde ALW Advances in MRI biomarkers for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease Biomark Med 2014 8 9 1151 1169 10.2217/bmm.14.42 25402585
Koch K, Myers NE, Göttler J, Pasquini L, Grimmer T, Förster S, Manoliu A, Neitzel J, Kurz A, Förstl H Disrupted intrinsic networks link amyloid-β pathology and impaired cognition in prodromal Alzheimer's disease Cereb Cortex 2015 25 12 4678 4688 10.1093/cercor/bhu151 24996404
Kotlarz P, Nino JC, Febo M Connectomic analysis of Alzheimer’s disease using percolation theory Netw Neurosci 2022 6 1 213 233 10.1162/netn_a_00221 36605889
Kreisl WC, Lyoo CH, McGwier M, Snow J, Jenko KJ, Kimura N, Corona W, Morse CL, Zoghbi SS, Pike VW In vivo radioligand binding to translocator protein correlates with severity of Alzheimer’s disease Brain 2013 136 7 2228 2238 10.1093/brain/awt145 23775979
Lehmann M, Ghosh PM, Madison C, Laforce Jr R, Corbetta-Rastelli C, Weiner MW, Greicius MD, Seeley WW, Gorno-Tempini ML, Rosen HJ Diverging patterns of amyloid deposition and hypometabolism in clinical variants of probable Alzheimer’s disease Brain 2013a 136 3 844 858 10.1093/brain/aws327 23358601
Lehmann M, Madison CM, Ghosh PM, Seeley WW, Mormino E, Greicius MD, Gorno-Tempini ML, Kramer JH, Miller BL, Jagust WJ Intrinsic connectivity networks in healthy subjects explain clinical variability in Alzheimer’s disease Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2013b 110 28 11606 11611 10.1073/pnas.1221536110 23798398
Leng F, Edison P (2021) Neuroinflammation and microglial activation in Alzheimer disease: where do we go from here? Nat Rev Neurol 17(3): 157−172

Leng F, Hinz R, Gentleman S, Hampshire A, Dani M, Brooks DJ, Edison P Neuroinflammation is independently associated with brain network dysfunction in Alzheimer’s disease Mol Psychiatry 2023 28 3 1303 1311 10.1038/s41380-022-01878-z 36474000
Li L, Hu X, Preuss TM, Glasser MF, Damen FW, Qiu Y, Rilling J Mapping putative hubs in human, chimpanzee and rhesus macaque connectomes via diffusion tractography NeuroImage 2013 80 462 474 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.024 23603286
Li R, Nguyen T, Potter T, Zhang Y Dynamic cortical connectivity alterations associated with Alzheimer's disease: an EEG and fNIRS integration study NeuroImage Clin 2019 21 101622 10.1016/j.nicl.2018.101622 30527906
Li W, Yang C, Shi F, Wu S, Wang Q, Nie Y, Zhang X Construction of individual morphological brain networks with multiple morphometric features Front Neuroanat 2017 11 34 10.3389/fnana.2017.00034 28487638
Li Y, Wang N, Wang H, Lv Y, Zou Q, Wang J Surface-based single-subject morphological brain networks: effects of morphological index, brain parcellation and similarity measure, sample size-varying stability and test-retest reliability NeuroImage 2021 235 118018 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118018 33794358
Li Y, Wang X, Li Y, Sun Y, Sheng C, Li H, Li X, Yu Y, Chen G, Hu X Abnormal resting-state functional connectivity strength in mild cognitive impairment and its conversion to Alzheimer’s disease Neural plast 2016 2016 4680972 10.1155/2016/4680972 26843991
Liang X, Wang J, Yan C, Shu N, Xu K, Gong G, He Y Effects of different correlation metrics and preprocessing factors on small-world brain functional networks: a resting-state functional MRI study PLoS One 2012 7 3 e32766 10.1371/journal.pone.0032766 22412922
Liang X, Zou Q, He Y, Yang Y Coupling of functional connectivity and regional cerebral blood flow reveals a physiological basis for network hubs of the human brain Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2013 110 5 1929 1934 10.1073/pnas.1214900110 23319644
Liang X, Zou Q, He Y, Yang Y Topologically reorganized connectivity architecture of default-mode, executive-control, and salience networks across working memory task loads Cereb Cortex 2016 26 4 1501 1511 10.1093/cercor/bhu316 25596593
Liao X-H, Xia M-R, Xu T, Dai Z-J, Cao X-Y, Niu H-J, Zuo X-N, Zang Y-F, He Y Functional brain hubs and their test–retest reliability: a multiband resting-state functional MRI study NeuroImage 2013 83 969 982 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.07.058 23899725
Liao X, Yuan L, Zhao T, Dai Z, Shu N, Xia M, Yang Y, Evans A, He Y (2015) Spontaneous functional network dynamics and associated structural substrates in the human brain. Front Hum Neurosci 9: 478. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00478

Lim HK, Nebes R, Snitz B, Cohen A, Mathis C, Price J, Weissfeld L, Klunk W, Aizenstein HJ Regional amyloid burden and intrinsic connectivity networks in cognitively normal elderly subjects Brain 2014 137 12 3327 3338 10.1093/brain/awu271 25266592
Lim YY, Ellis KA, Ames D, Darby D, Harrington K, Martins RN, Masters CL, Rowe C, Savage G, Szoeke C Aβ amyloid, cognition, and APOE genotype in healthy older adults Alzheimers Dement 2013 9 5 538 545 10.1016/j.jalz.2012.07.004 23159043
Lin W, Gao Q, Du M, Chen W, Tong T Multiclass diagnosis of stages of Alzheimer's disease using linear discriminant analysis scoring for multimodal data Comput Biol and Medicine 2021 134 104478 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.104478
Liu C-C, Kanekiyo T, Xu H, Bu G Apolipoprotein E and Alzheimer disease: risk, mechanisms and therapy Nat Rev Neurol 2013 9 2 106 118 10.1038/nrneurol.2012.263 23296339
Liu G, Shen C, Qiu A Amyloid-β accumulation in relation to functional connectivity in aging: A longitudinal study NeuroImage 2023 275 120146 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2023.120146 37127190
Liu Y, Yu C, Zhang X, Liu J, Duan Y, Alexander-Bloch AF, Liu B, Jiang T, Bullmore E Impaired long distance functional connectivity and weighted network architecture in Alzheimer's disease Cereb Cortex 2014 24 6 1422 1435 10.1093/cercor/bhs410 23314940
Lo C-Y, Wang P-N, Chou K-H, Wang J, He Y, Lin C-P Diffusion tensor tractography reveals abnormal topological organization in structural cortical networks in Alzheimer's disease J Neurosci 2010 30 50 16876 16885 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4136-10.2010 21159959
Lohmann G, Margulies DS, Horstmann A, Pleger B, Lepsien J, Goldhahn D, Schloegl H, Stumvoll M, Villringer A, Turner R Eigenvector centrality mapping for analyzing connectivity patterns in fMRI data of the human brain PLoS One 2010 5 4 e10232 10.1371/journal.pone.0010232 20436911
Luo Y, Sun T, Ma C, Zhang X, Ji Y, Fu X, Ni H Alterations of brain networks in Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment: a resting state fMRI study based on a population-specific brain template Neuroscience 2021 452 192 207 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2020.10.023 33197505
Lynch CJ, Breeden AL, Gordon EM, Cherry JBC, Turkeltaub PE, Vaidya CJ Precision inhibitory stimulation of individual-specific cortical hubs disrupts information processing in humans Cereb Cortex 2019 29 9 3912 3921 10.1093/cercor/bhy270 30364937
Machulda MM, Jones DT, Vemuri P, McDade E, Avula R, Przybelski S, Boeve BF, Knopman DS, Petersen RC, Jack CR Effect of APOE ε4 status on intrinsic network connectivity in cognitively normal elderly subjects Arch neurol 2011 68 9 1131 1136 10.1001/archneurol.2011.108 21555604
Margulies DS, Vincent JL, Kelly C, Lohmann G, Uddin LQ, Biswal BB, Villringer A, Castellanos FX, Milham MP, Petrides M Precuneus shares intrinsic functional architecture in humans and monkeys Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2009 106 47 20069 20074 10.1073/pnas.0905314106 19903877
Menardi A, Dotti L, Ambrosini E, Vallesi A Transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment in Alzheimer’s disease: a meta-analysis of its efficacy as a function of protocol characteristics and degree of personalization J Neurol 2022 269 10 5283 5301 10.1007/s00415-022-11236-2 35781536
Mormino EC, Betensky RA, Hedden T, Schultz AP, Ward A, Huijbers W, Rentz DM, Johnson KA, Sperling RA, Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative tAIB, Lifestyle Flagship Study of A, the Harvard Aging Brain S Amyloid and APOE ε4 interact to influence short-term decline in preclinical Alzheimer disease Neurology 2014 82 20 1760 1767 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000431 24748674
Myers N, Pasquini L, Göttler J, Grimmer T, Koch K, Ortner M, Neitzel J, Mühlau M, Förster S, Kurz A Within-patient correspondence of amyloid-β and intrinsic network connectivity in Alzheimer’s disease Brain 2014 137 7 2052 2064 10.1093/brain/awu103 24771519
Oh SW, Harris JA, Ng L, Winslow B, Cain N, Mihalas S, Wang Q, Lau C, Kuan L, Henry AM A mesoscale connectome of the mouse brain Nature 2014 508 7495 207 214 10.1038/nature13186 24695228
Park H-J, Friston K Structural and functional brain networks: from connections to cognition Science 2013 342 6158 1238411 10.1126/science.1238411 24179229
Pereira JB, Mijalkov M, Kakaei E, Mecocci P, Vellas B, Tsolaki M, Kłoszewska I, Soininen H, Spenger C, Lovestone S Disrupted network topology in patients with stable and progressive mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease Cereb Cortex 2016 26 8 3476 3493 10.1093/cercor/bhw128 27178195
Pievani M, Filippini N, Van Den Heuvel MP, Cappa SF, Frisoni GB Brain connectivity in neurodegenerative diseases—from phenotype to proteinopathy Nat Rev Neurol 2014 10 11 620 633 10.1038/nrneurol.2014.178 25287597
Power JD, Schlaggar BL, Lessov-Schlaggar CN, Petersen SE Evidence for hubs in human functional brain networks Neuron 2013 79 4 798 813 10.1016/j.neuron.2013.07.035 23972601
Raichle ME The brain's default mode network Ann Rev Neurosci 2015 38 433 447 10.1146/annurev-neuro-071013-014030 25938726
Raichle ME, MacLeod AM, Snyder AZ, Powers WJ, Gusnard DA, Shulman GL A default mode of brain function Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001 98 2 676 682 10.1073/pnas.98.2.676 11209064
Raj A, Kuceyeski A, Weiner M A network diffusion model of disease progression in dementia Neuron 2012 73 6 1204 1215 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.12.040 22445347
Rauchmann BS, Brendel M, Franzmeier N, Trappmann L, Zaganjori M, Ersoezlue E, Morenas‐Rodriguez E, Guersel S, Burow L, Kurz C Microglial activation and connectivity in Alzheimer disease and aging Ann Neurol 2022 92 5 768 781 10.1002/ana.26465 36053756
Reiman EM, Caselli RJ, Yun LS, Chen K, Bandy D, Minoshima S, Thibodeau SN, Osborne D Preclinical evidence of Alzheimer's disease in persons homozygous for the ε4 allele for apolipoprotein E N Engl J Med 1996 334 12 752 758 10.1056/NEJM199603213341202 8592548
Reiman EM, Chen K, Alexander GE, Caselli RJ, Bandy D, Osborne D, Saunders AM, Hardy J Correlations between apolipoprotein E ε4 gene dose and brain-imaging measurements of regional hypometabolism Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2005 102 23 8299 8302 10.1073/pnas.0500579102 15932949
Reiman EM, Chen K, Liu X, Bandy D, Yu M, Lee W, Ayutyanont N, Keppler J, Reeder SA, Langbaum JBS Fibrillar amyloid-β burden in cognitively normal people at 3 levels of genetic risk for Alzheimer's disease Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2009 106 16 6820 6825 10.1073/pnas.0900345106 19346482
Sanabria-Diaz G, Martinez-Montes E, Melie-Garcia L, Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging I Glucose metabolism during resting state reveals abnormal brain networks organization in the Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment PLoS One 2013 8 7 e68860 10.1371/journal.pone.0068860 23894356
Sato N, Morishita R The roles of lipid and glucose metabolism in modulation of β-amyloid, tau, and neurodegeneration in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer disease Front Aging Neurosci 2015 7 199 10.3389/fnagi.2015.00199 26557086
Schmidt R, LaFleur KJR, de Reus MA, van den Berg LH, van den Heuvel MP Kuramoto model simulation of neural hubs and dynamic synchrony in the human cerebral connectome BMC Neurosci 2015 16 1 13 10.1186/s12868-015-0140-z 25655275
Seeley WW, Crawford RK, Zhou J, Miller BL, Greicius MD Neurodegenerative diseases target large-scale human brain networks Neuron 2009 62 1 42 52 10.1016/j.neuron.2009.03.024 19376066
Seidlitz J, Váša F, Shinn M, Romero-Garcia R, Whitaker KJ, Vértes PE, Wagstyl K, Reardon PK, Clasen L, Liu S Morphometric similarity networks detect microscale cortical organization and predict inter-individual cognitive variation Neuron 2018 97 1 231 247 10.1016/j.neuron.2017.11.039 29276055
Selkoe DJ Alzheimer's disease: genes, proteins, and therapy Physiol Rev 2001 81 2 741 66 10.1152/physrev.2001.81.2.741 11274343
Seo EH, Lee DY, Lee J-M, Park J-S, Sohn BK, Lee DS, Choe YM, Woo JI Whole-brain functional networks in cognitively normal, mild cognitive impairment, and Alzheimer’s disease PLoS One 2013 8 1 e53922 10.1371/journal.pone.0053922 23335980
Shafi MM, Westover MB, Fox MD, Pascual‐Leone A Exploration and modulation of brain network interactions with noninvasive brain stimulation in combination with neuroimaging Eur J Neurosci 2012 35 6 805 825 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2012.08035.x 22429242
Sheline YI, Morris JC, Snyder AZ, Price JL, Yan Z, D'Angelo G, Liu C, Dixit S, Benzinger T, Fagan A APOE4 allele disrupts resting state fMRI connectivity in the absence of amyloid plaques or decreased CSF Aβ42 J Neurosci 2010a 30 50 17035 17040 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3987-10.2010 21159973
Sheline YI, Raichle ME Resting state functional connectivity in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease Biol Psychiatry 2013 74 5 340 347 10.1016/j.biopsych.2012.11.028 23290495
Sheline YI, Raichle ME, Snyder AZ, Morris JC, Head D, Wang S, Mintun MA Amyloid plaques disrupt resting state default mode network connectivity in cognitively normal elderly Biol Psychiatry 2010b 67 6 584 587 10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.08.024 19833321
Shigemoto Y, Sone D, Okita K, Maikusa N, Yamao T, Kimura Y, Suzuki F, Fujii H, Kato K, Sato N Gray matter structural networks related to 18F-THK5351 retention in cognitively normal older adults and Alzheimer's disease patients eNeurologicalsci 2021 22 100309 10.1016/j.ensci.2021.100309 33511292
Shu N, Liang Y, Li H, Zhang J, Li X, Wang L, He Y, Wang Y, Zhang Z Disrupted topological organization in white matter structural networks in amnestic mild cognitive impairment: relationship to subtype Radiology 2012 265 2 518 527 10.1148/radiol.12112361 22984189
Shu N, Wang X, Bi Q, Zhao T, Han Y Disrupted topologic efficiency of white matter structural connectome in individuals with subjective cognitive decline Radiology 2018 286 1 229 238 10.1148/radiol.2017162696 28799862
Sinclair B, Hansell NK, Blokland GAM, Martin NG, Thompson PM, Breakspear M, de Zubicaray GI, Wright MJ, McMahon KL Heritability of the network architecture of intrinsic brain functional connectivity NeuroImage 2015 121 243 252 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.07.048 26226088
Small DH, Mok SS, Bornstein JC Alzheimer's disease and Aβ toxicity: from top to bottom Nat Rev Neurosci 2001 2 8 595 598 10.1038/35086072 11484003
Smith SM, Beckmann CF, Andersson J, Auerbach EJ, Bijsterbosch J, Douaud G, Duff E, Feinberg DA, Griffanti L, Harms MP Resting-state fMRI in the human connectome project NeuroImage 2013 80 144 168 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.039 23702415
Sorg C, Riedl V, Muhlau M, Calhoun VD, Eichele T, Läer L, Drzezga A, Förstl H, Kurz A, Zimmer C Selective changes of resting-state networks in individuals at risk for Alzheimer's disease Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007 104 47 18760 18765 10.1073/pnas.0708803104 18003904
Spasov S, Passamonti L, Duggento A, Lio P, Toschi N, Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging I A parameter-efficient deep learning approach to predict conversion from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer's disease NeuroImage 2019 189 276 287 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.01.031 30654174
Stam CJ Modern network science of neurological disorders Nat Rev Neurosci 2014 15 10 683 695 10.1038/nrn3801 25186238
Stam CJ, De Haan W, Daffertshofer A, Jones BF, Manshanden I, van Cappellen van Walsum A-M, Montez T, Verbunt JPA, De Munck JC, Van Dijk BW Graph theoretical analysis of magnetoencephalographic functional connectivity in Alzheimer's disease Brain 2009 132 1 213 224 10.1093/brain/awn262 18952674
Sui X, Zhu M, Cui Y, Yu C, Sui J, Zhang X, Liu J, Duan Y, Zhang Z, Wang L Functional connectivity hubs could serve as a potential biomarker in Alzheimer’s disease: a reproducible study Curr Alzheimer Res 2015 12 10 974 983 10.2174/1567205012666150710111615 26159198
Therriault J, Pascoal TA, Savard M, Mathotaarachchi S, Benedet AL, Chamoun M, Tissot C, Lussier FZ, Rahmouni N, Stevenson J Intrinsic connectivity of the human brain provides scaffold for tau aggregation in clinical variants of Alzheimer’s disease Sci Transl Med 2022 14 659 eabc8693 10.1126/scitranslmed.abc8693 36001678
Tijms BM, Möller C, Vrenken H, Wink AM, de Haan W, van der Flier WM, Stam CJ, Scheltens P, Barkhof F Single-subject grey matter graphs in Alzheimer's disease PLoS One 2013a 8 3 e58921 10.1371/journal.pone.0058921 23536835
Tijms BM, Seriès P, Willshaw DJ, Lawrie SM Similarity-based extraction of individual networks from gray matter MRI scans Cereb Cortex 2012 22 7 1530 1541 10.1093/cercor/bhr221 21878484
Tijms BM, Wink AM, de Haan W, van der Flier WM, Stam CJ, Scheltens P, Barkhof F Alzheimer's disease: connecting findings from graph theoretical studies of brain networks Neurobiol Aging 2013b 34 8 2023 2036 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2013.02.020 23541878
Tomasi D, Shokri-Kojori E, Volkow ND High-resolution functional connectivity density: hub locations, sensitivity, specificity, reproducibility, and reliability Cereb Cortex 2015 26 7 3249 3259 26223259
Tomasi D, Wang G-J, Volkow ND Energetic cost of brain functional connectivity Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2013 110 33 13642 13647 10.1073/pnas.1303346110 23898179
Vaishnavi SN, Vlassenko AG, Rundle MM, Snyder AZ, Mintun MA, Raichle ME Regional aerobic glycolysis in the human brain Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2010 107 41 17757 17762 10.1073/pnas.1010459107 20837536
van den Heuvel MP, Bullmore ET, Sporns O Comparative connectomics Trends Cogn Sci 2016 20 5 345 361 10.1016/j.tics.2016.03.001 27026480
van den Heuvel MP, Kahn RS, Goñi J, Sporns O High-cost, high-capacity backbone for global brain communication Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012 109 28 11372 11377 10.1073/pnas.1203593109 22711833
van den Heuvel MP, Sporns O Rich-club organization of the human connectome J Neurosci 2011 31 44 15775 15786 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3539-11.2011 22049421
van den Heuvel MP, Sporns O An anatomical substrate for integration among functional networks in human cortex J Neurosci 2013a 33 36 14489 14500 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2128-13.2013 24005300
van den Heuvel MP, Sporns O Network hubs in the human brain Trends Cogn Sci 2013b 17 12 683 696 10.1016/j.tics.2013.09.012 24231140
van den Heuvel MP, Stam CJ, Boersma M, Pol HEH Small-world and scale-free organization of voxel-based resting-state functional connectivity in the human brain NeuroImage 2008 43 3 528 539 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.08.010 18786642
van den Heuvel MP, van Soelen ILC, Stam CJ, Kahn RS, Boomsma DI, Pol HEH Genetic control of functional brain network efficiency in children Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 2013 23 1 19 23 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2012.06.007 22819192
Wang H, Jin X, Zhang Y, Wang J Single-subject morphological brain networks: connectivity mapping, topological characterization and test–retest reliability Brain Behav 2016a 6 4 e00448 10.1002/brb3.448 27088054
Wang J, He Y Toward individualized connectomes of brain morphology Trends Neurosci 2024 47 2 106 119 10.1016/j.tins.2023.11.011 38142204
Wang J, Wang L, Zang Y, Yang H, Tang H, Gong Q, Chen Z, Zhu C, He Y Parcellation-dependent small-world brain functional networks: a resting-state fMRI study Hum Brain Mapp 2009 30 5 1511 1523 10.1002/hbm.20623 18649353
Wang J, Wang X, He Y, Yu X, Wang H, He Y Apolipoprotein E ε4 modulates functional brain connectome in A lzheimer's disease Hum Brain Mapp 2015a 36 5 1828 1846 10.1002/hbm.22740 25619771
Wang J, Zuo X-N, Gohel S, Milham MP, Biswal BB, He Y Graph theoretical analysis of functional brain networks: test-retest evaluation on short-and long-term resting-state functional MRI data PLoS One 2011 6 7 e21976 10.1371/journal.pone.0021976 21818285
Wang J, Zuo X, Dai Z, Xia M, Zhao Z, Zhao X, Jia J, Han Y, He Y Disrupted functional brain connectome in individuals at risk for Alzheimer's disease Biol Psychiatry 2013 73 5 472 481 10.1016/j.biopsych.2012.03.026 22537793
Wang L, Roe CM, Snyder AZ, Brier MR, Thomas JB, Xiong C, Benzinger TL, Morris JC, Ances BM Alzheimer disease family history impacts resting state functional connectivity Ann Neurol 2012 72 4 571 577 10.1002/ana.23643 23109152
Wang X, Zeng Y, Chen G-Q, Zhang Y-H, Li X-Y, Hao X-Y, Yu Y, Zhang M, Sheng C, Li Y-X Abnormal organization of white matter networks in patients with subjective cognitive decline and mild cognitive impairment Oncotarget 2016b 7 31 48953 48962 10.18632/oncotarget.10601 27418146
Wang Z, Dai Z, Gong G, Zhou C, He Y Understanding structural-functional relationships in the human brain: a large-scale network perspective Neuroscientist 2015b 21 3 290 305 10.1177/1073858414537560 24962094
Warren JD, Fletcher PD, Golden HL The paradox of syndromic diversity in Alzheimer disease Nat Rev Neurol 2012 8 8 451 464 10.1038/nrneurol.2012.135 22801974
Wassermann EM, Lisanby SH Therapeutic application of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation: a review Clin Neurophysiol 2001 112 8 1367 1377 10.1016/S1388-2457(01)00585-5 11459676
Wei N, Liu H, Ye W, Xu S, Lu C, Dai A, Hou T, Zeng X, Wu J, Chen J Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation may be superior to drug therapy in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis CNS Neurosci Ther 2023 29 10 2912 2924 10.1111/cns.14228 37088953
Xia M, Wang Z, Dai Z, Liang X, Song H, Shu N, Li K, He Y Differentially disrupted functional connectivity in posteromedial cortical subregions in Alzheimer's disease J Alzheimers Dis 2014 39 3 527 543 10.3233/JAD-131583 24217277
Xiang J, Guo H, Cao R, Liang H, Chen J An abnormal resting-state functional brain network indicates progression towards Alzheimer's disease Neural Regen Res 2013 8 30 2789 2799 25206600
Xiong J, Yu C, Su T, Ge Q-M, Shi W-Q, Tang L-Y, Shu H-Y, Pan Y-C, Liang R-B, Li Q-Y Altered brain network centrality in patients with mild cognitive impairment: an fMRI study using a voxel-wise degree centrality approach Aging (Albany NY) 2021 13 11 15491 15500 34106878
Xu X, Chen P, Xiang Y, Xie Z, Yu Q, Zhou X, Wang P (2022) Altered pattern analysis and identification of subjective cognitive decline based on morphological brain network. Front Aging Neurosci 14: 965923. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2022.965923

Yan C, Gong G, Wang J, Wang D, Liu D, Zhu C, Chen ZJ, Evans A, Zang Y, He Y Sex- and brain size-related small-world structural cortical networks in young adults: a DTI tractography study Cereb Cortex 2011 21 2 449 458 10.1093/cercor/bhq111 20562318
Yan T, Wang W, Yang L, Chen K, Chen R, Han Y Rich club disturbances of the human connectome from subjective cognitive decline to Alzheimer's disease Theranostics 2018 8 12 3237 3255 10.7150/thno.23772 29930726
Yan Y, Tian M, Wang T, Wang X, Wang Y, Shi J Transcranial magnetic stimulation effects on cognitive enhancement in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis Front Neurol 2023 14 1209205 10.3389/fneur.2023.1209205 37528850
Yao Z, Zhang Y, Lin L, Zhou Y, Xu C, Jiang T, Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging I Abnormal cortical networks in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease PLoS Computat Biol 2010 6 11 e1001006 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1001006
Yassine HN, Self W, Kerman BE, Santoni G, Navalpur Shanmugam N, Abdullah L, Golden LR, Fonteh AN, Harrington MG, Gräff J Nutritional metabolism and cerebral bioenergetics in Alzheimer's disease and related dementias Alzheimers Dement 2023 19 3 1041 1066 10.1002/alz.12845 36479795
Yu M, Engels MMA, Hillebrand A, Van Straaten ECW, Gouw AA, Teunissen C, Van Der Flier WM, Scheltens P, Stam CJ Selective impairment of hippocampus and posterior hub areas in Alzheimer’s disease: an MEG-based multiplex network study Brain 2017 140 5 1466 1485 10.1093/brain/awx050 28334883
Yu T-W, Lane H-Y, Lin C-H Novel therapeutic approaches for Alzheimer’s disease: an updated review Int J Mol Sci 2021 22 15 8208 10.3390/ijms22158208 34360973
Zalesky A, Fornito A, Bullmore E On the use of correlation as a measure of network connectivity NeuroImage 2012 60 4 2096 2106 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.02.001 22343126
Zalesky A, Fornito A, Cocchi L, Gollo LL, Breakspear M Time-resolved resting-state brain networks Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2014 111 28 10341 10346 10.1073/pnas.1400181111 24982140
Zalesky A, Fornito A, Harding IH, Cocchi L, Yücel M, Pantelis C, Bullmore ET (2010) Whole-brain anatomical networks: does the choice of nodes matter? NeuroImage 50(3): 970−983

Zhang J, He X, Liu Y, Cai Q, Chen H, Qing L Multi-modal cross-attention network for Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis with multi-modality data Comput Biol Med 2023 162 107050 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.107050 37269680
Zhang M, Qian X-h, Hu J, Zhang Y, Lin X, Hai W, Shi K, Jiang X, Li Y, Tang H-d Integrating TSPO PET imaging and transcriptomics to unveil the role of neuroinflammation and amyloid-β deposition in Alzheimer’s disease Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2024 51 2 455 467 10.1007/s00259-023-06446-3 37801139
Zhang S, Zhang M, Cai F, Song W Biological function of Presenilin and its role in AD pathogenesis Transl Neurodegener 2013 2 1 15 10.1186/2047-9158-2-15 23866842
Zhao T, Duan F, Liao X, Dai Z, Cao M, He Y, Shu N Test-retest reliability of white matter structural brain networks: a multiband diffusion MRI study Front Hum Neurosci 2015 9 59 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00059 25741265
Zhao X, Liu Y, Wang X, Liu B, Xi Q, Guo Q, Jiang H, Jiang T, Wang P Disrupted small-world brain networks in moderate Alzheimer's disease: a resting-state FMRI study PLoS One 2012 7 3 e33540 10.1371/journal.pone.0033540 22457774
Zhou J, Gennatas ED, Kramer JH, Miller BL, Seeley WW Predicting regional neurodegeneration from the healthy brain functional connectome Neuron 2012 73 6 1216 1227 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.03.004 22445348
Zhou J, Greicius MD, Gennatas ED, Growdon ME, Jang JY, Rabinovici GD, Kramer JH, Weiner M, Miller BL, Seeley WW Divergent network connectivity changes in behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer’s disease Brain 2010 133 5 1352 1367 10.1093/brain/awq075 20410145
Zhou J, Li K, Luo X, Zeng Q, Jiaerken Y, Wang S, Xu X, Liu X, Li Z, Zhang T Distinct impaired patterns of intrinsic functional network centrality in patients with early- and late-onset Alzheimer’s disease Brain Imaging Behav 2021 15 2661 2670 10.1007/s11682-021-00470-3 33844192
Zhou J, Seeley WW Network dysfunction in Alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal dementia: implications for psychiatry Biol Psychiatry 2014 75 7 565 573 10.1016/j.biopsych.2014.01.020 24629669
Zhu B, Li Q, Xi Y, Li X, Yang Y, Guo C Local brain network alterations and olfactory impairment in Alzheimer’s disease: an fMRI and graph-based study Brain Sci 2023 13 4 631 10.3390/brainsci13040631 37190596
Zuo X-N, Ehmke R, Mennes M, Imperati D, Castellanos FX, Sporns O, Milham MP Network centrality in the human functional connectome Cereb Cortex 2012 22 8 1862 1875 10.1093/cercor/bhr269 21968567
Zuo X-N, Xing X-X Test-retest reliabilities of resting-state FMRI measurements in human brain functional connectomics: a systems neuroscience perspective Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2014 45 100 118 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.05.009 24875392
