## 3 Results
### Graph Theory Analysis: Lobar Networks Analysis  
Detailed results for group comparisons according to tumor location are available in Tables 1-3. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Frontal Tumors** & **HGG/Controls** & \(p\)**-Value** & **LGG/Controls** & \(p\)**-Value** & **HGG/LGG** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline Global Efficiency & & & SFG r & 0.006 & \\ Local Efficiency & & SFG r & 0.045 & & SFG r & 0.045 \\ Betweenness Centrality & & IFG tri1 & 0.006 & SFG r & 0.025 & IFG tri1 & 0.001 \\  & & & SFG l & 0.012 & & \\ Cost & & & SFG r & 0.028 & & \\ Average Path Length & & & SFG r & 0.003 & & SFG r & 0.045 \\ Clustering Coefficient & & SFG r & 0.017 & MidFG l & 0.042 & & \\  & & IFG tri1 & 0.016 & & & \\ Degree & & & SFG r & 0.028 & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & HGG = high-grade gliomas; LGG = low-grade gliomas; MidFG l = middle frontal gyrus left; SFG l = superior frontal gyrus left; SFG r = superior frontal gyrus right; IFG tri1 = left inferior frontal gyrus pars triangulars.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Graph-theory statistics results for gliomas involving the frontal lobe. Significance is reported as FDR corrected \(p\)-value. Figure 2: Images above: post-contrast 3D T1-weighted MR scans of four patients with high-grade glioma (image a-d, red arrows). Tumor location was labeled to account for involved lobes as follows: frontal (**a**), temporal (**b**), parietal (**c**) and insular involvement (**d**). Images below: FLAIR-weighted MR scans of four patients with low-grade glioma (image e-h, light blue arrows). Tumor location was labeled to account for involved lobes as follows: frontal (**e**), temporal (**f**), parietal (**g**) and insular involvement (**h**). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline
**Temporal Tumors** & **HGG/Controls** & _p-Value_ & **LGG/Controls** & _p-Value_ & **HGG/LGG** & _p-Value_ \\ \hline Global Efficiency & pSTG 1 & 0.010 & aSTG 1 & 0.027 & & \\ Local Efficiency & pMTG r & 0.044 & pSTG 1 & 0.003 & & \\ Betweenness Centrality & pSTG r & 0.040 & aMTG 1 & 0.030 & & \\ Cost & pMTG r & 0.022 & aSTG 1 & 0.018 & pMTG r & 0.031 \\  & toMTG r & 0.032 & pSTG 1 & 0.008 & & \\  & pSTG 1 & 0.032 & aMTG 1 & 0.017 & & \\  & & & aITG r & 0.017 & & \\ Clustering Coefficient & & & pSTG 1 & 0.018 & & \\  & & & aSTG r & 0.018 & pMTG r & 0.031 \\ Degree & pMTG r & 0.022 & aSTG 1 & 0.018 & & \\  & toMTG r & 0.032 & pSTG 1 & 0.008 & & \\  & & pSTG 1 & 0.032 & aMTG 1 & 0.017 & & \\  & & aITG 1 & 0.038 & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{c} HGG = high-grade gliomas; ITG = inferior temporal gyrus (l = left; r = right; a = anterior division); LGG = low-grade gliomas; MTG = middle temporal gyrus (l = left; r = right; a = anterior division; p = posterior division; to = temporo-occipital); STG = superior temporal gyrus (l = left; r = right; a = anterior division; p = posterior division; p = posterior division; p = posterior division).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Graph-theory statistics results for gliomas involving the temporal lobe. Significance is reported as FDR corrected _p-_value. Figure 3: Images above represent the global efficiency of the left hemispheric functional network in healthy controls (**a**), patients with low-grade glioma (LGG) (**b**) and patients with high-grade glioma (HGG) (**c**). Blue arrowheads highlight examples of functional connectivity modification in communities of nodes. Images below represent the cost of the right hemispheric functional network in healthy controls (**d**), patients with HGG (**e**) and patients with LGG (**f**). Significant modifications were detected in the left hemispheric network of LGG compared to HC for global efficiency and in the right hemispheric network of HGG compared to HC for cost. Blue circles highlight examples of significant functional connectivity modifications in communities of nodes. The size of the red nodes represents the value of the respective graph theory metric.