Table 4.

Thesholding t-maps in Figures 3 –6 revealed unidirectional and bidirectional changes, which is illustrated in terms of the number of positive (P) and negative (N) clusters, where they, respectively, correspond to areas of higher and lower intensities compared to control. See Table 1 for abbreviations of conditions. The positive clusters in the thresholded GMN (P_GMN) versus qCMR_glc (P_qCMR) t-maps were 8 times greater, whereas negative clusters in the thresholded GMN (N_GMN) versus qCMR_glc (N_qCMR) t-maps were 2 times greater. Similarity between thresholded GMN and qCMR_glc t-maps was assessed by several metrics: (i) the total number of clusters given by the sum of P and N clusters, for qCMR_glc (T_qCMR = P_qCMR + N_qCMR) and GMN (T_GMN = P_GMN + N_GMN) thresholded t-maps; (ii) the difference between the P clusters (D_P) for GMN and qCMR_glc thresholded t-maps (D_P = P_GMN − P_qCMR); (iii) the difference between the N clusters (D_N) for GMN and qCMR_glc thresholded t-maps (D_N = N_GMN − N_qCMR). Analysis shows that T_GMN was about 4 times greater than T_qCMR, whereas both D_P and D_N were greater than 0, signifying that GMN thresholded t-maps consistently revealed more bidirectional changes. For thresholded t-maps, see Figure S3 for EMCS, MCS, and UWS versus control (HAEC); Figure S4 for Sev0.25, Sev0.5, and Des1 versus control (HAEC); Figure S5 for HAEO versus control (HAEC); and Figure S6 for CB versus control (HAEC).

Condition versus control	Threshold (t-value)	Number of clusters				Similarity between GMN and qCMRglc
		PqCMR	NqCMR	PGMN	NGMN	TqCMR	TGMN	DP	DN
EMCS	4	0	1	2	1	1	3	2	0
MCS	4	0	1	5	1	1	6	5	0
UWS	4	0	1	2	1	1	3	2	0
Sev0.25%	2	0	1	1	2	1	3	1	1
Sev0.5%	2	0	1	0	4	1	4	0	3
Des1%	2	0	1	2	3	1	5	2	2
HAEO	1	1	0	3	2	1	5	2	2
CB	0.5	1	2	3	1	3	4	2	−1
Mean ± standard deviation		0.3 ± 0.5	1.0 ± 0.5	2.3 ± 1.5	1.9 ± 1.1	1.3 ± 0.7	4.1 ± 1.1	2.0 ± 1.4	0.9 ± 1.4