# Multi-Graph Assessment of Temporal and Extratemporal Lobe Epilepsy in Resting-State fMRI
## 3 Results
### Hub Probabilities in Brain Sectors  
We employed a statistical evaluation of anatomical subdivisions within the brain (brain sectors), each incorporating several ROIs (extended results can be found in Supplementary Materials). This procedure was applied separately for each centrality measure and each graph, while additionally implemented for the overall hub probability, defined as the mean hub probability of the ROIs included in each brain sector, regardless of the centrality measure. Figure 6 presents the mean centrality-specific hub probabilities within the eight brain sectors, for each of the three groups (C, TLE, ETLE). Similarly, Figure 7 displays the overall mean hub probability within the brain sectors. In the Pearson graphs, the hubs based on the degree centrality hub probability are mainly located in the motor area for both patient groups. On the other hand, the control group presents most of the degree centrality hubs in the temporal lobe. The highest betweenness centrality hub probability is observed in the subcortical areas in all three groups. In the local efficiency hub probability, significant differences were indicated between ETLE and TLE patients in the frontal lobe and the cingulate cortex. Similarly, the control group displayed statistically significantly higher values compared to the TLE group in the motor areas. In the MI graphs, the three groups displayed similar hub probabilities, regardless of the centrality measure. Most of the hubs based on the degree centrality hub probability were observed in the parietal lobe. Interestingly, although all centrality measures indicated very low values and therefore close to zero hubs in the subcortical area, the local efficiency hub probability had its highest values there. In the Granger causality graphs, the subcortical regions presented higher values in the degree centrality hub probability. This was also observed in the local efficiency hub probability values. The betweenness centrality hub probability displayed extremely low (close to zero) hub probability values. Despite this, there were a few hubs presented in the motor and parietal areas that were able to influence the mean values and thus display significant differences among the groups. Figure 5: The hub regions with the highest probabilities in the Granger causality graphs for: (**a**) the control group, (**b**) the TLE group, and (**c**) the ETLE group. Node color denotes the inclusion of each node to control, TLE, and ETLE groups. i.e., Light blue: node included only in the control group, Red: node included only in the TLE group, Green: node included only in the ETLE group, Purple: node included in the control and ETLE groups, Blue: node included in control and TLE groups, Orange: node included in the TLE and ETLE groups, and Yellow: node included in all groups. Figure 6: Mean centrality-specific hub probabilities within the eight brain sectors. The bottom and top edges of each box indicate the 25 th and 75 th percentiles, while the red line indicates the median value. The whiskers extend to the most extreme values, whereas outliers are presented with a circle. Significant differences (\(p<0.05\)) are presented with the asterisk (*) symbol. Red: difference between TLE and ETLE; blue: difference between ETLE and control; black: difference between TLE and control. Of note is that the eigenvector centrality hub probability had comparable results with the degree centrality in both Pearson correlation and MI. As we mentioned in the methodology section, the eigenvector centrality can be calculated only for nodes of undirected graphs and hence, it is not defined for the graphs of Granger causality. In the overall hub probability, the highest values in the Pearson correlation graphs were indicated in the motor area and the parietal lobe for TLE and ETLE patients, while in the control group, the occipital lobe presented the highest values, compared to the other brain sectors.