Table 3.
Comparisons of the global network measures among the control, aMCI, and RGD groups
| Sp | Eglob | Eloc | Lp | Cp | λ | γ | σ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low-resolution network (L-AAL) | ||||||||
| Control | 579.6 (14.48) | 0.60 (0.009) | 0.94 (0.011) | 1.67 (0.029) | 0.36 (0.002) | 1.17 (0.008) | 4.00 (0.088) | 3.43 (0.069) |
| aMCI | 512.6 (13.20) | 0.57 (0.008) | 0.91 (0.010) | 1.77 (0.026) | 0.36 (0.002) | 1.18 (0.007) | 4.17 (0.080) | 3.54 (0.062) |
| RGD | 530.3 (13.95) | 0.57 (0.008) | 0.92 (0.010) | 1.76 (0.028) | 0.36 (0.002) | 1.19 (0.008) | 4.12 (0.084) | 3.46 (0.066) |
| F value | 6.18 | 3.93 | 2.63 | 3.97 | 1.22 | 2.80 | 1.13 | 0.77 |
| p value | 0.003a,b | 0.023a,b | NS | 0.022a,b | NS | NS | NS | NS |
| High-resolution network (H-1024) | ||||||||
| Control | 91.25 (2.08) | 0.34 (0.005) | 0.79 (0.008) | 2.92 (0.058) | 0.32 (0.002) | 1.35 (0.009) | 23.72 (0.39) | 17.60 (0.22) |
| aMCI | 82.04 (1.89) | 0.32 (0.005) | 0.77 (0.007) | 3.20 (0.053) | 0.32 (0.002) | 1.37 (0.008) | 24.58 (0.36) | 17.95 (0.20) |
| RGD | 84.17 (2.00) | 0.32 (0.005) | 0.77 (0.008) | 3.18 (0.056) | 0.32 (0.002) | 1.37 (0.009) | 24.76 (0.38) | 18.06 (0.21) |
| F value | 5.80 | 8.32 | 3.44 | 7.62 | 1.34 | 1.95 | 2.07 | 1.25 |
| p value | 0.004a,b | 0.0005a,b | 0.036a,b | 0.0008a,b | NS | NS | NS | NS |
The FN-weighted WM networks for each participant were constructed using two parcellation methods (L-AAL and H-1024). The comparisons of the global network measures were performed among the three groups (aMCI, RGD, and controls) using univariate ANCOVAs. Post hoc pairwise comparisons were then performed using t test. Values estimated the marginal means (SEs) of the global network measures after covarying out age, gender, and education effects. p < 0.05 was considered significant. NS, Not significant.
aPost hoc paired comparisons showed significant group differences between control versus aMCI.
bPost hoc paired comparisons showed significant group differences between control versus RGD.