Table 3 Summary of all analyses and results with relevant figures and tables for reference.

From: Large-scale resculpting of cortical circuits in children after surgical resection

Analysis

Results

Relevant figures/tables

Connectivity of 7 functional ROIs

All voxels within the same functional cortical ROIs were positively correlated (no negative FC within-ROI)

Supp. Mat. Figure S2, Table S2

Voxel-wise positive and negative FC (roughly 50%/50%) among subcortical ROIs

FC between < FC within the same ROIs

No group-level differences in patients and controls for between-ROI FC or within-ROI FC

Single subjects in control distribution (except NN and JF)

Connectivity of 180 anatomical ROIs

Voxel-wise positive and negative FC (roughly 50%/50%) among all pairs of ROIs

Figure 1, Supp. Mat. Table S3

FC between < FC within ROIs

No group-level differences in patients and controls for between-ROI FC or within-ROI FC

No single-patient differences compared to control group

Connectivity of 22 anatomical networks

Voxel-wise positive and negative FC (roughly 50%/50%) among all pairs of networks

Figure 2, Supp. Mat. Figure S3, Supp. Mat. Table S5

Negative voxel-wise FC was not an artefact of pre-processing

FC between < FC within the same networks

No group-level differences in patients and controls for between-ROI FC or within-ROI FC

No single-patient differences compared to control group

Distance of FC in patients to mean FC in controls

Positive FC stable and normal in all patients vs controls

Figure 3

KQ, UD, NN, FD, JF showed abnormal negative FC compared to controls

Stability of FC in network pairs

Most network pairs had high variability, while some had stable, equal FC across all controls

Figure 4

Patients exhibited altered FC compared to controls in the supposedly stable network pairs

No single network pair is altered in all patients compared to controls, but two network pairs were altered in all three RH resection patients

Significant correlation fraction

Group level differences in both positive- and negative-SCF across all distances

Figure 5, Table 2, Supp. Mat. Figures S4, S5, Table S6

Single-subject level differences, albeit a heterogenous mix, in all patients versus controls