Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42206219›Full record

ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)

Intracranial volume: To adjust or not to adjust? It is not a matter of if, but how.

Aliza Brzezinski-Rittner, Roqaie Moqadam, Yashar Zeighami, Mahsa Dadar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

Aliza Brzezinski-RittnerCerebral Imaging Center, Douglas Mental Health University Institute, Québec, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1681-7248
Roqaie MoqadamCerebral Imaging Center, Douglas Mental Health University Institute, Québec, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0361-3083
Yashar ZeighamiCerebral Imaging Center, Douglas Mental Health University Institute, Québec, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0583-5811
Mahsa DadarCerebral Imaging Center, Douglas Mental Health University Institute, Québec, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4008-2672

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

agingbrain sizecorrectioncortical thicknessdeformation-based morphometryhead sizeintracranial volumemagnetic resonance imagingsexsurface areavolume

Identifiers

PMID42206219
PMCPMC13206449

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.