Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36272672›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2022

Accommodating site variation in neuroimaging data using normative and hierarchical Bayesian models.

Johanna M M Bayer, Richard Dinga, Seyed Mostafa Kia, Akhil R Kottaram, Thomas Wolfers, Jinglei Lv, Andrew Zalesky, Lianne Schmaal, Andre Marquand

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing 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

48 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Multiscale Heterogeneity of White Matter Morphometry in Psychiatric Disorders.Biological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Normative Modeling of Static and Dynamic Functional Connectivity.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

Johanna M M BayerOrygen, Parkville, Australia; Centre for Youth mental Health, The University of Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: bayerj@student.unimelb.edu.au.
Richard DingaDonders Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Seyed Mostafa KiaDonders Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Akhil R KottaramOrygen, Parkville, Australia; Centre for Youth mental Health, The University of Melbourne, Australia.
Thomas WolfersDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, Norway.
Jinglei LvSchool of Biomedical Engineering & Brain and Mind Center, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Andrew ZaleskyMelbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, The University of Melbourne & Melbourne Health, Australia; Department of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Australia.
Lianne SchmaalOrygen, Parkville, Australia; Centre for Youth mental Health, The University of Melbourne, Australia.
Andre MarquandRadboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College London, London, UK.

Funding

Trauma and Genomics Modulate Brain Structure across Common Psychiatric DisordersR01MH111671 · NIMH · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI MARK W LOGUE, RAJENDRA A MOREY · 2017 to 2026
$4.4M
Neurobiologically-Based Subtyping of Multi-Cohort Samples with MDD and PTSD SymptomsR01MH129832 · NIMH · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI MOREY, RAJENDRA A, SCHMAAL, LIANNE · 2022 to 2025
$2.3M
A global alliance to unlock brain mechanisms influencing suicidal behaviors through the ENIGMA ConsortiumR01MH117601 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI JAHANSHAD, NEDA, SCHMAAL, LIANNE · 2018 to 2021
$1.5M
European Research Council 101001118NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH111671NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH117601NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH129832Wellcome Trust 215698
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The potential of normative modeling to make individualized predictions from neuroimaging data has enabled inferences that go beyond the case-control approach. However, site effects are often confounded with variables of interest in a complex manner and can bias estimates of normative models, which has impeded the application of normative models to large multi-site neuroimaging data sets. In this study, we suggest accommodating for these site effects by including them as random effects in a hierarchical Bayesian model. We compared the performance of a linear and a non-linear hierarchical Bayesian model in modeling the effect of age on cortical thickness. We used data of 570 healthy individuals from the ABIDE (autism brain imaging data exchange) data set in our experiments. In addition, we used data from individuals with autism to test whether our models are able to retain clinically useful information while removing site effects. We compared the proposed single stage hierarchical Bayesian method to several harmonization techniques commonly used to deal with additive and multiplicative site effects using a two stage regression, including regressing out site and harmonizing for site with ComBat, both with and without explicitly preserving variance caused by age and sex as biological variation of interest, and with a non-linear version of ComBat. In addition, we made predictions from raw data, in which site has not been accommodated for. The proposed hierarchical Bayesian method showed the best predictive performance according to multiple metrics. Beyond that, the resulting z-scores showed little to no residual site effects, yet still retained clinically useful information. In contrast, performance was particularly poor for the regression model and the ComBat model in which age and sex were not explicitly modeled. In all two stage harmonization models, predictions were poorly scaled, suffering from a loss of more than 90% of the original variance. Our results show the value of hierarchical Bayesian regression methods for accommodating site variation in neuroimaging data, which provides an alternative to harmonization techniques. While the approach we propose may have broad utility, our approach is particularly well suited to normative modeling where the primary interest is in accurate modeling of inter-subject variation and statistical quantification of deviations from a reference model.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalNeuroimagingBayes TheoremBrainHumansHierarchical bayesian modelingNeuroimagingNormative modelingSite effects

Identifiers

PMID36272672
PMCPMC7614761

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.