# Multi-Graph Assessment of Temporal and Extratemporal Lobe Epilepsy in Resting-State fMRI
## 3 Results  
### Topological Characteristics  
The comparison between the global topological features, including global assortativity, efficiency, the mean clustering coefficient, and the number of components, was implemented for the three types of graphs (Pearson, MI, Granger causality) for all density levels. The results of all the global topological features comparison are presented in Table 5.  
From the topological characteristics analysis, the features that displayed significant differences among the three groups in all the connectivity methodologies were the global assortativity and the mean clustering coefficient (Figure 2). Specifically, in the Pearson correlation analysis, the healthy control displayed positive values of assortativity in all density levels. On the contrary, TLE patients exhibited disassortative functional networks for density levels higher than 30%. In higher density levels (above 45%), the TLE group showed lower values of global efficiency when compared to the other two groups. Interestingly, ETLE patients presented an increased mean clustering coefficient compared to the other two groups. Further, when the density level is more than 40%, TLE patients presented more components compared to the other two groups. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Global Topological Features** & **HC vs. TLE** & **HC vs. ETLE** & **TLE vs. ETLE** & **Metric** & **Density Level** \\ \hline Global & \(\uparrow\) & & & Pearson correlation & 30–50\% \\ assortativity & & & \(\downarrow\) & Mutual information & 5–10\% \\  & & & \(\downarrow\) & Granger causality & 5–45\% \\ \hline Global & \(\uparrow\) & & & Pearson correlation & 45–50\% \\ efficiency & & & \(\downarrow\) & Pearson correlation & 30–50\% \\  & & & \(\uparrow\) & Granger causality & 5\% \\ \hline  & & \(\downarrow\) & & Pearson correlation & 5\% \\  & \(\uparrow\) & & & Pearson correlation & 25\% \\ Global & & & \(\downarrow\) & Pearson correlation & 30–35\% \\ clustering coefficient & & \(\downarrow\) & & Mutual information & 40–45\% \\  & & & \(\uparrow\) & Granger causality & 15–40\% \\  & & \(\downarrow\) & & Pearson correlation & 5\% \\  & \(\uparrow\) & & & Pearson correlation & 25\% \\ \hline Number of components & \(\downarrow\) & & & Pearson correlation & 40–50\% \\  & & & \(\uparrow\) & Pearson correlation & 30–50\% \\  & & \(\uparrow\) & & Granger causality & 5\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: The upwards/downwards arrow (\(\uparrow\)/\(\downarrow\)) indicates that the group has statistically significant higher/lower values, respectively. When there is no arrow, there is no statistically significant result. The metric of the test is shown in the fourth column. The fifth column presents the graph’s density level when there was a statistically significant result. The dash denotes that the difference was observed in all the density levels from the starting percentage to the final with a step of 5%.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Global topological features comparison. The graphs that evaluate the functional connectivity with the non-linear metric of MI present comparable topological features between the control and the TLE group. When 5% or 10% of the highest total edges are preserved, ETLE patients have higher assortativity compared to the TLE group. All the groups have disassortative graphs in all the density levels. In higher levels of density (40-45%) of the MI graphs, ETLE patients presented higher levels of clustering coefficient on average, compared to the graphs of the control group. Concerning the Granger causality network, controls present similar topological features with each of the two patient groups, with significant differences being observed between TLE and ETLE groups. Specifically, TLE patients present graphs with higher clustering coefficient, and lower values of assortativity compared to ETLE group in most density levels.