  Comparing weighted networks in neuroscience is hard, because the topological
properties of a given network are necessarily dependent on the number of edges
of that network. This problem arises in the analysis of both weighted and
unweighted networks. The term density is often used in this context, in order
to refer to the mean edge weight of a weighted network, or to the number of
edges in an unweighted one. Comparing families of networks is therefore
statistically difficult because differences in topology are necessarily
associated with differences in density. In this review paper, we consider this
problem from two different perspectives, which include (i) the construction of
summary networks, such as how to compute and visualize the mean network from a
sample of network-valued data points; and (ii) how to test for topological
differences, when two families of networks also exhibit significant differences
in density. In the first instance, we show that the issue of summarizing a
family of networks can be conducted by adopting a mass-univariate approach,
which produces a statistical parametric network (SPN). In the second part of
this review, we then highlight the inherent problems associated with the
comparison of topological functions of families of networks that differ in
density. In particular, we show that a wide range of topological summaries,
such as global efficiency and network modularity are highly sensitive to
differences in density. Moreover, these problems are not restricted to
unweighted metrics, as we demonstrate that the same issues remain present when
considering the weighted versions of these metrics. We conclude by encouraging
caution, when reporting such statistical comparisons, and by emphasizing the
importance of constructing summary networks.
