Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36507071›Full record

ArticleNeuroimage. Reports2022

Validation of cross-sectional and longitudinal ComBat harmonization methods for magnetic resonance imaging data on a travelling subject cohort.

Sophie Richter, Stefan Winzeck, Marta M Correia, Evgenios N Kornaropoulos, Anne Manktelow, Joanne Outtrim, Doris Chatfield, Jussi P Posti, Olli Tenovuo, Guy B Williams and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroimage. Reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

12 authors.

Sophie RichterDivision of Anaesthesia, Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Stefan WinzeckDivision of Anaesthesia, Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Marta M CorreiaMRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Evgenios N KornaropoulosDiagnostic Radiology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Anne ManktelowDivision of Anaesthesia, Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Joanne OuttrimDivision of Anaesthesia, Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Doris ChatfieldDivision of Anaesthesia, Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Jussi P PostiTurku Brain Injury Center, Turku University Hospital & University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Olli TenovuoTurku Brain Injury Center, Turku University Hospital & University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Guy B WilliamsWolfson Brain Imaging Centre, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
David K MenonDivision of Anaesthesia, Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Virginia F J NewcombeDivision of Anaesthesia, Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00005/14
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The growth in multi-center neuroimaging studies generated a need for methods that mitigate the differences in hardware and acquisition protocols across sites i.e., scanner effects. ComBat harmonization methods have shown promise but have not yet been tested on all the data types commonly studied with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). This study aimed to validate neuroCombat, longCombat and gamCombat on both structural and diffusion metrics in both cross-sectional and longitudinal data. Methods: We used a travelling subject design whereby 73 healthy volunteers contributed 161 scans across two sites and four machines using one T1 and five diffusion MRI protocols. Scanner was defined as a composite of site, machine and protocol. A common pipeline extracted two structural metrics (volumes and cortical thickness) and two diffusion tensor imaging metrics (mean diffusivity and fractional anisotropy) for seven regions of interest including gray and (except for cortical thickness) white matter regions. Results: Structural data exhibited no significant scanner effect and therefore did not benefit from harmonization in our particular cohort. Indeed, attempting harmonization obscured the true biological effect for some regions of interest. Diffusion data contained marked scanner effects and was successfully harmonized by all methods, resulting in smaller scanner effects and better detection of true biological effects. LongCombat less effectively reduced the scanner effect for cross-sectional white matter data but had a slightly lower probability of incorrectly finding group differences in simulations, compared to neuroCombat and gamCombat. False positive rates for all methods and all metrics did not significantly exceed 5%. Conclusions: Statistical harmonization of structural data is not always necessary and harmonization in the absence of a scanner effect may be harmful. Harmonization of diffusion MRI data is highly recommended with neuroCombat, longCombat and gamCombat performing well in cross-sectional and longitudinal settings.

Indexed as

ComBatDiffusion tensor imagingHarmonizationTravelling subjectUp to 6): magnetic resonance imaging

Identifiers

PMID36507071
PMCPMC9726680

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.