Graph Neural Networks in Network Neuroscience Arxiv:2106.03535V1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Graph Neural Networks in Network Neuroscience Alaa Bessadok,1;2;3 Mohamed Ali Mahjoub,2;3 and Islem Rekik1;4 1BASIRA lab, Faculty of Computer and Informatics, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey, Postal code; email: [email protected] 2Higher Institute of Informatics and Communication Technologies, University of Sousse, Tunisia, 4011 3National Engineering School of Sousse, University of Sousse, LATIS- Laboratory of Advanced Technology and Intelligent Systems, Sousse, Tunisia, 4023 4School of Science and Engineering, Computing, University of Dundee, UK Xxxx. Xxx. Xxx. Xxx. 2021. AA:1{27 Keywords https://doi.org/10.1146/((please add brain graph, connectome, graph neural network, graph topology, article doi)) graph theory, geometric deep learning Copyright © 2021 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved Abstract Noninvasive medical neuroimaging has yielded many discoveries about the brain connectivity. Several substantial techniques mapping morpho- logical, structural and functional brain connectivities were developed to create a comprehensive road map of neuronal activities in the human brain {namely brain graph. Relying on its non-Euclidean data type, graph neural network (GNN) provides a clever way of learning the deep arXiv:2106.03535v1 [cs.LG] 7 Jun 2021 graph structure and it is rapidly becoming the state-of-the-art leading to enhanced performance in various network neuroscience tasks. Here we review current GNN-based methods, highlighting the ways that they have been used in several applications related to brain graphs such as missing brain graph synthesis and disease classification. We conclude by charting a path toward a better application of GNN models in network neuroscience field for neurological disorder diagnosis and population graph integration. The list of papers cited in our work is available at https://github.com/basiralab/GNNs-in-Network-Neuroscience. 1 Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 2 2. WHAT DO GRAPH NEURAL NETWORKS OFFER TO NETWORK NEUROSCIENCE? ................ 4 2.1. GNN overview ........................................................................................... 4 2.2. Literature search and taxonomy definition ............................................................. 6 2.3. Brain graph prediction .................................................................................. 6 2.4. Brain graph integration ................................................................................. 12 2.5. Brain graph classification ............................................................................... 13 3. DISCUSSION AND OUTLOOK ............................................................................. 17 3.1. Toward clinical translation .............................................................................. 17 3.2. Outlook.................................................................................................. 21 1. INTRODUCTION Understanding how the underpinning connections in the biological neural system account for human brain functions has been a preoccupation of researchers for several years (1, 2, 3). To accomplish this aim, network neuroscience field has emerged with the aim of mapping the endogenous activity generated by neurons. Particularly, neuroscientists modeled the brain as a graph where nodes represent the anatomical brain regions connected by edges referring to morphological, functional, or structural connectivities relating pairwise nodes (4, 5, 6). Conventionally, three types of brain graphs can be defined from different medical modalities: morphological, structural, and functional brain graphs, which are derived from structural T1-weighted, diffusion-weighted and resting-state functional MRI, respectively (7, 8, 9, 10, 11). Such graph representation of the brain gives rise to the understanding of the life span of brain wiring across three axes. The first one represents the time axis where we can track the brain connectivity changes over time from birth to age or foresee a transition from a healthy to a disordered state. By deepening our understanding of the relationship between the brain connectivities at a first timepoint and its follow-up acquisitions, we may produce novel diagnostic tools for better identifying neurological disorders at a very early stage (e.g., Alzheimer's disease and autism) (12, 13). The second axis refers to the resolution of the brain graph which yields to discovering new inter-regional connections that Three axes to hold the brain. Specifically, a brain can be modeled by a low-resolution or super-resolution generate brain connectome where the former one has fewer nodes (i.e., region of interest (ROIs)) and graphs: From a single brain graph, edges than the latter. Mainly, each connectome scale represents its own specific window existing works can into the topographic organization of the brain (14). Thus, this diversity in resolution will generate different certainly increase the performance of early disease diagnosis (15) as it helps better capture types of brain the multi-level nested complexity of the brain as a connectome. Ultimately, knowing that connectivities neurological disorders affect the brain in different ways, one may boost the diagnosis by (domain axis), produce higher leveraging the complementary information present in multiple modalities such as functional resolution graphs and morphological connectivities (7, 17, 16). Therefore, the third axis refers to the domain (resolution axis) and in which the brain data was collected, which is commonly referred to in network neuroscience predict graph as the `neuroimaging modality' (e.g., functional MRI or diffusion MRI) utilized to generate topological changes the brain connectome type (e.g., functional or structural). Such cross-domain multimodal over time (time axis). representation of the brain connectivity provides invaluable complementary information for brain mapping in health and disease. 2 Bessadok et al. Ideally, one would have a connectomic dataset that spans all these dimensions to benefit from the complementary between different brain network representations. Such multimodal Morphological brain graph: Recently dataset will provide rich information that helps generate a holistic connectional roadmap invented by (16, 7), encoding different facets of the brain thereby understanding typical and atypical brain con- this type of brain nectivities (3, 6). Although several connectomic datasets have been proliferated such as the graphs is derived Human Connectome Project (HCP) (18), the Baby Connectome Project (BCP) (19) and the from T1-weighted Connectome Related to Human Disease (CRHD) (20), they often have missing observations MRI and involves cortical measures due to various reasons such as high-cost of clinical scans and time-consuming preprocessing such as sulcal depth step of neuroimaging data. To overcome this obstacle, various graph generative models and cortical emerged (21, 24, 22, 15, 23) based on different machine learning (ML) architectures. Such thickness to estimate models aim to generate a holistic mapping of the brain from minimal resources where the the distance in prediction of multimodal (21), high-resolution (22, 15) and temporal evolution (24, 23) of morphology between brain regions. brain networks is achieved from single-domain, single-time and single-scale source brain graph, respectively. Leveraging such brain graph generative models in a real clinical setting Structural brain graph: It consists of will be beneficial in several aspects: for a disordered subject having only a morphological a brain graph brain graph derived from T1-weighted MRI, one can chart out all the missing modalities derived from (diffusion and functional) over time and at various resolutions. This will reduce the scanning diffusion tensor time as well as the time-consuming neuroimage processing pipelines. Basically, from one imaging (DTI) or single baseline brain graph, we can predict all its variations across different domains, resolu- diffusion spectrum imaging (DSI) tions and timepoints. Another line of ML-based generative models have been implemented (8, 10, 2) where via graph integration (25, 26, 27, 28). The integration aims to generate a representative edges between each template of a population of brain muligraphs with a shared neurological state (e.g., autistic). pair of nodes This generated connectional brain template (CBT) encodes a holistic mapping of shared measures the degree traits within a population of brain multigraphs. of white matter connectivity between Although these machine learning frameworks are powerful and have a great impact the associated pair on the fast development of computer-aided brain connectomics, they are still learned in a of ROIs. dichotomized way where different sub-parts of the framework are trained independently. Functional brain Therefore, being agnostic to cumulative errors is undeniably substantial for making predic- graph: tions that are interpretable in the clinical world. Recent studies aimed to solve this issue by Conventionally leveraging deep learning (DL) models such as convolutional neural network (CNN) which is derived from inherently trained in an end-to-end fashion (36). While effective when compared to tradi- functional MRI (fMRI) using a tional machine learning methods, still DL methods do not generalize well to non-Euclidean measure of data types (e.g., graphs). More specifically, directly applying DL methods to graphs over- correlation (e.g.,