Sharon Nienyun Hsu (11014140), Erika Wong En Hui (11014143), Mengzhen Liu (5523035) et al. · Figshare · 2021
<p><b>A:</b> The histogram shows the distribution of total degree of the nodes. FOS and STAT1 are the most connected nodes across networks with total degree of 28 and 26, respectively. They are defined as hubs and co-expression around the hubs was explored. <b>B:</b> The 15 most connected genes listed by the total number of connections in all Basal-specific networks.</p>
Cited by 0Open access
Isaac Lera (4045058), Toni Pérez (219369), Carlos Guerrero (4045061) et al. · Figshare · 2017
<p>The degree distribution for the three islands for the aggregated 4S. Dashed lines represent fits to <i>f</i>(<i>x</i>) ∼ <i>exp</i>(−<i>bx</i>) with <i>b</i> = (0.005, 0.026, 0.012) for Majorca, Minorca, and Ibiza & Formentera respectively.</p>
Cited by 0Open access
Pew-Thian Yap (305644), Yong Fan (212624), Yasheng Chen (343423) et al. · Figshare · 2015
<p>Single-scale, scale-free and broad-scale <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0024678#pone.0024678-Amaral1" target="_blank">[39]</a> are characterized by Gaussian/exponential decay, power law decay, and truncated power law decay, respectively. The node degree distributions give good indication that the pediatric brain networks are broad-scale in nature. In the double logarithmic plots, the degree distribution decays linearly before a sharp cutoff. The gradient magnitudes of the fitted lines are 3.921, 2.784 and 2.764 for (a), (b) and (c), respectively.</p>
Cited by 0Open access
Jasmin L. Walter (12800523), Lucas Essmann (12800526), Sabine U. König (3396362) et al. · Figshare · 2022
<p><b>(a)</b> The graph of one participant is visualized on top of the map of Seahaven. The nodes were colored according to their respective node degree centrality. <b>(b)</b> The individual mean node degrees of all participants (blue line) and their respective standard deviation (grey lines) are depicted sorted by increasing values. <b>(c)</b> A pseudo 3D plot color coding the node degree of every house (abscissa) for every participant (ordinate). The houses are sorted so that the average node degree value increases along the abscissa. Similarly, the participants are sorted, so that the average node degree increases along the ordinate. The marginals of this plot result in the panels b and e. <b>(d)</b> The distribution of the pairwise inter-participant correlation coefficients of the node degree values of all houses. <b>(e)</b> The mean node degree of each house sorted according to the mean node degree along the abscissa (blue line) and their respective standard deviations (grey lines).</p>
Cited by 0Open access
Patric Hagmann (30294), Leila Cammoun (50805), Xavier Gigandet (30296) et al. · Figshare · 2015
<div><p>(A) Ranked distribution of node degree for left and right cerebral hemispheres. Shaded bars represent means across five participants and symbols indicate data for individual participants.</p>\n <p>(B) Ranked distribution of node strength for left and right cerebral hemispheres.</p>\n <p>(C) ROI strength obtained from high-resolution connection matrices. The plot shows how consistently ROI strength ranked in the top 20% across participants.</p></div>
Cited by 0Open access
Tiago Simas (29383), Shayanti Chattopadhyay (787901), Cindy Hagan (787902) et al. · Figshare · 2015
<p>Sagittal, axial and coronal projections (left-to-right) of nodes for comparisons of node degree in the semi-metric network for each between-group comparisons: (a) ASC vs. controls; (b) MDD vs controls. The radius of the node is proportional to the average degree difference and the colour denotes the direction of the effect; red indicating increases and green decreases, relative to controls. Plots of the difference in mean degree between (c) ASC and (d) MDD, and controls against mean degree for controls, for the semi-metric network. Node disruption indices are defined as the slope of the regression lines, plotted on each graph.</p>
Cited by 0Open access
Jelena Smiljanić (848985), Marija Mitrović Dankulov (848987) · Figshare · 2017
<p>Dependence of average member’s strength 〈<i>s</i>〉 on her degree <i>q</i> in social network of significant links for considered groups.</p>
Cited by 0Open access
Jesse Gillis (174666), Paul Pavlidis (335) · Figshare · 2015
<p>A) The unsparse coexpression data exhibits low node degree bias and very good performance using a nearest neighbor voting algorithm (mean AUC of 0.71). B) A very strong dependency on node degree is retained in the nearest neighbor analysis. The more extreme the performance of a GO group is based on node degree, the better the performance in the nearest-neighbor analysis. C) After a correction to remove the influence of node degree – links included only if performance is above that predicted by node degree alone – and aggregation, this matrix exhibits high performance (mean AUC = 0.70) and modest node degree bias (mean AUC = 0.55), but it again exhibits the triangular dependence on multifunctionality. D) An unsparsified coexpression network from a large multi-tissue coexpression experiment (GSE7307) yields a mean AUC of 0.68 across all GO groups and no node degree bias in favor of multifunctionality (mean AUC = 0.48), but exhibits the same triangular distribution of node degree AUCs.</p>
Cited by 0Open access
Paulo Shakarian (306171), J. Kenneth Wickiser (306172) · Figshare · 2015
Cited by 0Open access
Quan Liu (486219), Yuekang Yao (21100674), Meimei Jia (21100677) et al. · Figshare · 2025
The squares represent the distribution in the real dataset and the circles represent the generated dataset.
Cited by 0Open access
Elizabeth N. Davison (682496), Benjamin O. Turner (3360653), Kimberly J. Schlesinger (603200) et al. · Figshare · 2016
<p>Here, the average hyperedge node degree, or number of hyperedges that include each node over all individuals in the multi-task study is plotted on the brain. The scale is logarithmic, and higher values in a region indicate that there are more hyperedges that include the region. There are some regional differences in hyperedge concentration, and the face-specific hypergraph shows a global increase in hyperedges across the brain.</p>
Cited by 0Open access
Xin Feng (111466), Jiapei Li (5814941), Shuhui Hu (9946765) et al. · Figshare · 2021
Cited by 0Open access
Juan Wen (173034), Yanghong Tan (3592271), Lin Jiang (217766) · Figshare · 2016
Cited by 0Open access
Zeev Nutov · Lecture notes in computer science · 2012
Cited by 9
Xin Feng (111466), Jiapei Li (5814941), Shuhui Hu (9946765) et al. · Figshare · 2021
Cited by 0Open access
Xin Feng (111466), Jiapei Li (5814941), Shuhui Hu (9946765) et al. · Figshare · 2021
Cited by 0Open access
Marko Šterk (10783463), Lidija Križančić Bombek (10783466), Maša Skelin Klemen (10347833) et al. · Figshare · 2021
<p>Normalized node degree in interval 1 (I1) vs. normalized node degree in interval 2 (I2) for all cells in all islets in protocol G (panel a, cyan dots, <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.26) and protocol MK (panel b, violet dots, <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.59). Grey lines represent the linear fit. All values are normalized according to the number of cells in each individual recording. Cells without functional connections were excluded. Data were pooled from the following number of mice/cells/islets: 3/1373/10 (protocol G), 5/1731/12 (protocol MK).</p> <p>(TIF)</p>
Cited by 0Open access
Hyun-Myung Woo (8362896), Hyundoo Jeong (3840013), Byung-Jun Yoon (142313) · Figshare · 2020
Cited by 0Open access
Jesse Gillis (174666), Paul Pavlidis (335) · Figshare · 2015
<p>A) True prediction performance is compared for the same method (GeneMANIA) using entirely different strongly predictive data sets (Protein interaction vs. coexpression) across GO groups. The performance is quite different, but when average node degree is higher in both datasets (top 5% by product, dark circles), then common performance is high. B) The statistical significance of the protein interaction results are computed using the usual permutation test (black) and using the distribution generated by the node degree scores (grey). C) True prediction performance is compared using the same underlying data (coexpression), processed differently (threshold vs. top overlap) and analyzed differently (SVM vs. GeneMANIA). Performance is strongly similar. D) The statistical significance of the weakly performing threshold coexpression results are computed using the permutation test (black) and the node degree vector (grey). Only data in which some interaction is present within a given GO group – the learnable groups – was used.</p>
Cited by 0Open access
Emil H. J. Nijhuis (419939), Anne-Marie van Cappellen van Walsum (419940), David G. Norris (419941) · Figshare · 2015
<p>Average node degree pial (A) and inflated (B) surface hub map with a mean node degree of 102.57±19.78 (SD). The colour scale for the node degree values is shown at the right of subfigure (A). See also <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0065511#pone.0065511.s001" target="_blank">Table S1</a>.</p>
Cited by 0Open access