Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37476472›Full record

ArticleStatistics and its interface2017

Analysis of cortical morphometric variability using labeled cortical distance maps.

E Ceyhan, T Nishino, K N Botteron, M I Miller, J T Ratnanather

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics and its interface, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

E CeyhanDept. of Mathematics, Koç University, 34450, Sarıyer, Istanbul, Turkey.
T NishinoDept. of Psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA.
K N BotteronDept. of Psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA.
M I MillerCenter for Imaging Science, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA.
J T RatnanatherCenter for Imaging Science, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA.

Funding

TR&D 4: Algorithms for functional and anatomical brain analysisP41EB015909 · NIBIB · HUGO W. MOSER RES INST KENNEDY KRIEGER · PI VAN ZIJL, PETER CM · 2012 to 2020
$13.1M
SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL PATTERNS OF FUNCTIONAL ACTIVATIONP20MH057180 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES · PI ROTTENBERG, DAVID ALLAN · 1996 to 2003
$3.6M
DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROMORPHOMETRY IN YOUNG DEPRESSED TWINSR01MH062626 · NIMH · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BOTTERON, KELLY N · 2001 to 2005
$3.2M
NIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB015909NIMH NIH HHS P20 MH057180NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH062626
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Morphometric (i.e., shape and size) differences in the anatomy of cortical structures are associated with neurodevelopmental and neuropsychiatric disorders. Such differences can be quantized and detected by a powerful tool called Labeled Cortical Distance Map (LCDM). The LCDM method provides distances of labeled gray matter (GM) voxels from the GM/white matter (WM) surface for specific cortical structures (or tissues). Here we describe a method to analyze morphometric variability in the particular tissue using LCDM distances. To extract more of the information provided by LCDM distances, we perform pooling and censoring of LCDM distances. In particular, we employ Brown-Forsythe (BF) test of homogeneity of variance (HOV) on the LCDM distances. HOV analysis of pooled distances provides an overall analysis of morphometric variability of the LCDMs due to the disease in question, while the HOV analysis of censored distances suggests the location(s) of significant variation in these differences (i.e., at which distance from the GM/WM surface the morphometric variability starts to be significant). We also check for the influence of assumption violations on the HOV analysis of LCDM distances. In particular, we demonstrate that BF HOV test is robust to assumption violations such as the non-normality and within sample dependence of the residuals from the median for pooled and censored distances and are robust to data aggregation which occurs in analysis of censored distances. We recommend HOV analysis as a complementary tool to the analysis of distribution/location differences. We also apply the methodology on simulated normal and exponential data sets and assess the performance of the methods when more of the underlying assumptions are satisfied. We illustrate the methodology on a real data example, namely, LCDM distances of GM voxels in ventral medial prefrontal cortices (VMPFCs) to see the effects of depression or being of high risk to depression on the morphometry of VMPFCs. The methodology used here is also valid for morphometric analysis of other cortical structures.

Indexed as

62-0762P10Brown-Forsythe testCensoringComputational anatomyHomogeneity of variancePooled distancesPrimary 62H35secondary 62F03Simultaneous inference

Identifiers

PMID37476472
PMCPMC10358742

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.