Cargando…

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

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Richter, Sophie, Winzeck, Stefan, Correia, Marta M., Kornaropoulos, Evgenios N., Manktelow, Anne, Outtrim, Joanne, Chatfield, Doris, Posti, Jussi P., Tenovuo, Olli, Williams, Guy B., Menon, David K., Newcombe, Virginia F.J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier B.V 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9726680/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36507071
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ynirp.2022.100136
_version_ 1784844839090651136
author Richter, Sophie
Winzeck, Stefan
Correia, Marta M.
Kornaropoulos, Evgenios N.
Manktelow, Anne
Outtrim, Joanne
Chatfield, Doris
Posti, Jussi P.
Tenovuo, Olli
Williams, Guy B.
Menon, David K.
Newcombe, Virginia F.J.
author_facet Richter, Sophie
Winzeck, Stefan
Correia, Marta M.
Kornaropoulos, Evgenios N.
Manktelow, Anne
Outtrim, Joanne
Chatfield, Doris
Posti, Jussi P.
Tenovuo, Olli
Williams, Guy B.
Menon, David K.
Newcombe, Virginia F.J.
author_sort Richter, Sophie
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9726680
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Elsevier B.V
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97266802022-12-08 Validation of cross-sectional and longitudinal ComBat harmonization methods for magnetic resonance imaging data on a travelling subject cohort Richter, Sophie Winzeck, Stefan Correia, Marta M. Kornaropoulos, Evgenios N. Manktelow, Anne Outtrim, Joanne Chatfield, Doris Posti, Jussi P. Tenovuo, Olli Williams, Guy B. Menon, David K. Newcombe, Virginia F.J. Neuroimage Rep Article 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. Elsevier B.V 2022-12 /pmc/articles/PMC9726680/ /pubmed/36507071 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ynirp.2022.100136 Text en © 2022 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Richter, Sophie
Winzeck, Stefan
Correia, Marta M.
Kornaropoulos, Evgenios N.
Manktelow, Anne
Outtrim, Joanne
Chatfield, Doris
Posti, Jussi P.
Tenovuo, Olli
Williams, Guy B.
Menon, David K.
Newcombe, Virginia F.J.
Validation of cross-sectional and longitudinal ComBat harmonization methods for magnetic resonance imaging data on a travelling subject cohort
title Validation of cross-sectional and longitudinal ComBat harmonization methods for magnetic resonance imaging data on a travelling subject cohort
title_full Validation of cross-sectional and longitudinal ComBat harmonization methods for magnetic resonance imaging data on a travelling subject cohort
title_fullStr Validation of cross-sectional and longitudinal ComBat harmonization methods for magnetic resonance imaging data on a travelling subject cohort
title_full_unstemmed Validation of cross-sectional and longitudinal ComBat harmonization methods for magnetic resonance imaging data on a travelling subject cohort
title_short Validation of cross-sectional and longitudinal ComBat harmonization methods for magnetic resonance imaging data on a travelling subject cohort
title_sort validation of cross-sectional and longitudinal combat harmonization methods for magnetic resonance imaging data on a travelling subject cohort
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9726680/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36507071
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ynirp.2022.100136
work_keys_str_mv AT richtersophie validationofcrosssectionalandlongitudinalcombatharmonizationmethodsformagneticresonanceimagingdataonatravellingsubjectcohort
AT winzeckstefan validationofcrosssectionalandlongitudinalcombatharmonizationmethodsformagneticresonanceimagingdataonatravellingsubjectcohort
AT correiamartam validationofcrosssectionalandlongitudinalcombatharmonizationmethodsformagneticresonanceimagingdataonatravellingsubjectcohort
AT kornaropoulosevgeniosn validationofcrosssectionalandlongitudinalcombatharmonizationmethodsformagneticresonanceimagingdataonatravellingsubjectcohort
AT manktelowanne validationofcrosssectionalandlongitudinalcombatharmonizationmethodsformagneticresonanceimagingdataonatravellingsubjectcohort
AT outtrimjoanne validationofcrosssectionalandlongitudinalcombatharmonizationmethodsformagneticresonanceimagingdataonatravellingsubjectcohort
AT chatfielddoris validationofcrosssectionalandlongitudinalcombatharmonizationmethodsformagneticresonanceimagingdataonatravellingsubjectcohort
AT postijussip validationofcrosssectionalandlongitudinalcombatharmonizationmethodsformagneticresonanceimagingdataonatravellingsubjectcohort
AT tenovuoolli validationofcrosssectionalandlongitudinalcombatharmonizationmethodsformagneticresonanceimagingdataonatravellingsubjectcohort
AT williamsguyb validationofcrosssectionalandlongitudinalcombatharmonizationmethodsformagneticresonanceimagingdataonatravellingsubjectcohort
AT menondavidk validationofcrosssectionalandlongitudinalcombatharmonizationmethodsformagneticresonanceimagingdataonatravellingsubjectcohort
AT newcombevirginiafj validationofcrosssectionalandlongitudinalcombatharmonizationmethodsformagneticresonanceimagingdataonatravellingsubjectcohort