ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)
Intracranial volume: To adjust or not to adjust? It is not a matter of if, but how.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Associations between video gaming behaviors and cortical morphology in adolescents.NeuroImage · 2026Article
- Regional Brain Volume Variation Across Adulthood: A Cross-Sectional MRI Analysis of Age, Sex, and Hemispheric Asymmetry.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Distinct spatial associations of adversity with hippocampal macro- and microstructure in early adolescence.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Total intracranial volume (TIV) is a major confounding factor in neuroimaging studies, particularly when studying sex differences in the brain. Different methods have been proposed to adjust for this effect; however, their impact has not been directly studied and compared. Furthermore, when studying cortical metrics at the vertex level, the choice of smoothing level can impact analysis outcomes which can in turn impact the degree of TIV-based biases and the effectiveness of the correction methods. In this study, we sought to evaluate the impact of four most commonly used adjustment methods in the literature on the estimations of neuroanatomical sex differences. These methods included the proportions method, the residuals method, the power-corrected proportions method, and adding TIV as a covariate in a regression analysis. Leveraging data from the UK Biobank, we employed a matching approach to devise a gold standard as reference for comparing TIV correction methods. To achieve this, we matched the male and female participants based on age and TIV to remove the impact of TIV differences between sexes. We further modeled aging trajectories at the regional level, vertexwise using data with different smoothing levels, and voxelwise, using raw and adjusted values, and compared the obtained estimates against the gold standard. We found that across different metrics, adding TIV as a covariate was the best-performing method for removing the effect of TIV, in terms of the correlation between the estimates of the different subsamples and the gold standard as well as the degree of estimation bias. Furthermore, we showed that the commonly used smoothing of the morphometric measures can result in biased estimation of sex differences in these measures. Finally, we showed that while small in effect size, there still remains some neuroanatomically specific uncorrected effects for all adjustment methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.