Difference in the number of connection paths in all subjects and in subgroups

[7023...@qq.com]

Hello there

Our analysis with GIMME generated two distinct group-level connectivity paths. We observed that the number of group-level connectivity paths (2) is substantially smaller than the total number of connectivity paths identified within the two subgroups. Subgroup 1 exhibited four distinct connectivity paths, while Subgroup 2 displayed six unique connectivity paths.

Is it reasonable to observe that the group-level connectivity paths are significantly fewer than the combined number of connectivity paths found within the subgroups? Does this observation suggest anything specific about the data or the underlying neural processes?

What are the potential implications of having a limited number of group-level connectivity paths in contrast to more extensive subgroup-level connectivity paths in terms of interpreting our findings and making meaningful inferences?

Thanks so much

[Katie Gates]

Great question. It's definitely reasonable. I would say this suggests there is more within-subgroup homogeneity than there is homogeneity across the entire sample. A large number of group-level paths would have suggested a high degree of homogeneity in the process across all individuals in the sample, for instance. That more paths emerge at the subgroup level suggests the separation into subgroups found a higher degree of within-subgroup homogeneity than within-sample homogeneity. 

hope this helps, please let me know if anything needs clarificiation. 

Best, 
Katie