Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29887662›Full record

ArticleProceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering2018

Evaluation of inter-site bias and variance in diffusion-weighted MRI.

Allison E Hainline, Vishwesh Nath, Prasanna Parvathaneni, Justin Blaber, Baxter Rogers, Allen Newton, Jeffrey Luci, Heidi Edmonson, Hakmook Kang, Bennett A Landman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Allison E HainlineBiostatistics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37212.
Vishwesh NathComputer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37212.
Prasanna ParvathaneniBiostatistics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37212.
Justin BlaberBiostatistics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37212.
Baxter RogersInstitute of Imaging Science (VUIIS), Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37212.
Allen NewtonInstitute of Imaging Science (VUIIS), Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37212.
Jeffrey LuciNeuroscience, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712.
Heidi EdmonsonRadiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905.
Hakmook KangBiostatistics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37212.
Bennett A LandmanComputer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37212.

Funding

Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (VICTR) -Identifying correlates of functional immunity in SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasmaUL1TR002243 · NCATS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI Paul A. Harris, Wesley H Self · 2017 to 2026
$130.7M
VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY CTSA FOR PEDIATRIC RESEARCHUL1RR024975 · NCRR · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI BERNARD, GORDON RAPHAEL · 2007 to 2011
$45.7M
The Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (VICTR)UL1TR000445 · NCATS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI BERNARD, GORDON RAPHAEL · 2012 to 2016
$41.4M
Research Project: Sensory and Multisensory Contributions to AutismU54HD083211 · NICHD · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI DYKENS, ELISABETH MAY · 2015 to 2019
$7.1M
Controlling Quality and Capturing Uncertainty in Advanced Diffusion Weighted MRIR01EB017230 · NIBIB · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI LANDMAN, BENNETT A. · 2015 to 2024
$5.1M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000445NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002243NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024975NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB017230NICHD NIH HHS U54 HD083211
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An understanding of the bias and variance of diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) acquisitions across scanners, study sites, or over time is essential for the incorporation of multiple data sources into a single clinical study. Studies that combine samples from various sites may be introducing confounding due to site-specific artifacts and patterns. Differences in bias and variance across sites may render the scans incomparable, and, without correction, any inferences obtained from these data are misleading. We present an analysis of the bias and variance of scans of the same subjects across different sites and evaluate their impact on statistical analyses. In previous work, we presented a simulation extrapolation (SIMEX) technique for bias estimation as well as a wild bootstrap technique for variance estimation in metrics obtained from a Q-ball imaging (QBI) reconstruction of empirical high angular resolution diffusion imaging (HARDI) data. We now apply those techniques to data acquired from 5 healthy volunteers on 3 independent scanners under closely matched acquisition protocols. The bias and variance of GFA measurements were estimated on a voxel-wise basis for each scan and compared across study sites to identify site-specific differences. Further, we provide model recommendations that can be used to determine the extent of the impact of bias and variance as well as aspects of the analysis to account for these differences. We include a decision tree to help researchers determine if model adjustments are necessary based on the bias and variance results.

Indexed as

bias correctionbootstrapHARDImulti-siteQ-ballSIMEX

Identifiers

PMID29887662
PMCPMC5991622

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.