Metabolic connectivity (MC) has been previously proposed as the covariation of static [18F]FDG PET images across participants, i.e., across-individual MC (ai-MC). In few cases, MC has been inferred from dynamic [18F]FDG signals, i.e., within-individual MC (wi-MC), as for resting-state fMRI functional connectivity (FC). The validity and interpretability of both approaches is an important open issue. Here we reassess this topic, aiming to 1) develop a novel wi-MC methodology; 2) compare ai-MC maps from standardized uptake value ratio ( SUVR) vs. [18F]FDG kinetic parameters fully describing the tracer behavior (i.e., Ki, K1, k3); 3) assess MC interpretability in comparison to structural connectivity and FC. We developed a new approach based on Euclidean distance to calculate wi-MC from PET time-activity curves. The across-individual correlation of SUVR, Ki, K1, k3 produced different networks depending on the chosen [18F]FDG parameter ( k3 MC vs. SUVR MC, r = 0.44). We found that wi-MC and ai-MC matrices are dissimilar (maximum r = 0.37), and that the match with FC is higher for wi-MC (Dice similarity: 0.47–0.63) than for ai-MC (0.24–0.39). Our analyses demonstrate that calculating individual-level MC from dynamic PET is feasible and yields interpretable matrices that bear similarity to fMRI FC measures.

Purpose: Metabolic connectivity (MC) has been previously proposed as the covariation of static [18F]FDG PET images across participants, which we call across-individual MC (ai-MC). In few cases, MC has also been inferred from dynamic [18F]FDG signals, similarly to fMRI functional connectivity (FC), which we term within-individual MC (wi-MC). The validity and interpretability of both MC approaches is an important open issue. Here we reassess this topic, aiming to 1) develop a novel methodology for wi-MC estimation; 2) compare ai-MC maps obtained using different [18F]FDG parameters (K1, i.e. tracer transport rate, k3, i.e. phosphorylation rate, Ki, i.e. tracer uptake rate, and the standardized uptake value ratio, SUVR); 3) assess the interpretability of ai-MC and wi-MC in comparison to structural and functional connectivity (FC) measures. Methods: We analyzed dynamic [18F]FDG data from 54 healthy adults using kinetic modelling to quantify the macro- and microparameters describing the tracer behavior (i.e. Ki, K1, k3). We also calculated SUVR. From the across-individual correlation of SUVR, Ki, K1, k3, we obtained four different ai-MC matrices. A new approach based on Euclidean distance was developed to calculate wi-MC from PET time-activity curves. Results: We identified Euclidean similarity as the most appropriate metric to calculate wi-MC. ai-MC networks changed with different [18F]FDG parameters (k3 MC vs. SUVR MC, r = 0.44). We found that wi-MC and ai-MC matrices are dissimilar (maximum r = 0.37), and that the match with FC is higher for wi-MC (Dice similarity: 0.47-0.63) than for ai-MC (0.24-0.39). Conclusion: Our data demonstrate that individual-level MC from dynamic [18F]FDG data using Euclidean similarity is feasible and yields interpretable matrices that bear similarity to resting-state fMRI FC measures.