Exploring the limits of ComBat method for multi-site diffusion MRI harmonization
Cetin-Karayumak, S.; Stegmayer, K.; Walther, S.; Szeszko, P. R.; Crow, T.; James, A.; Keshavan, M.; Kubicki, M.; Rathi, Y.
Show abstract
The findings from diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI) studies often show inconsistent and sometimes contradictory results due to small sample sizes as well as differences in acquisition parameters and pre-/post-processing methods. To address these challenges, collaborative multi-site initiatives have provided an opportunity to collect larger and more diverse groups of subjects, including those with neuropsychiatric disorders, leading to increased power and findings that may be more representative at the group and individual level. With the availability of these datasets openly, the ability of joint analysis of multi-site dMRI data has become more important than ever. However, intrinsic- or acquisition-related variability in scanner models, acquisition protocols, and reconstruction settings hinder pooling multi-site dMRI directly. One powerful and fast statistical harmonization method called ComBat (https://github.com/Jfortin1/ComBatHarmonization) was developed to mitigate the "batch effect" in gene expression microarray data and was adapted for multi-site dMRI harmonization to reduce scanner/site effect. Our goal is to evaluate this commonly used harmonization approach using a large diffusion MRI dataset involving 542 individuals from 5 sites. We investigated two important aspects of using ComBat for harmonization of fractional anisotropy (FA) across sites: First, we assessed how well ComBat preserves the inter-subject biological variability (measured by the effect sizes of between-group FA differences) after harmonization. Second, we evaluated the effect of minor differences in pre-processing on ComBats performance. While the majority of effect sizes are mostly preserved in some sites after harmonization, they are not well-preserved at other sites where non-linear scanner contributions exist. Further, even minor differences in pre-processing can yield unwanted effects during ComBat harmonization. Thus, our findings suggest paying careful attention to the data being harmonized as well as using the same processing pipeline while using ComBat for data harmonization.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Lesion aware automated processing pipeline for multimodal neuroimaging stroke data and The Virtual Brain (TVB) 96%
- The impact of multiband and in-plane acceleration on white matter microstructure analysis 96%
- Performance of three freely available methods for extracting white matter hyperintensities: FreeSurfer, UBO Detector and BIANCA 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Detection of functional activity in brain white matter using fiber architecture informed synchrony mapping 96%
- Quality control strategies for brain MRI segmentation and parcellation: practical approaches and recommendations - insights from The Maastricht Study 95%
- How to measure functional connectivity using resting-state fMRI? A comprehensive empirical exploration of different connectivity metrics 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Harmonized diffusion MRI data and white matter measures from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study 96%
- The Amsterdam Open MRI Collection, a set ofmultimodal MRI datasets for individual differenceanalyses 95%
- Circadian rhythmicity and reinforcement processing: a dataset of MRI, fMRI, and behavioral measurements 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- The neurocognitive gains of diagnostic reasoning training using simulated interactive veterinary cases. 95%
- Improved correspondence of fMRI visual field localizer data after cortex-based macroanatomical alignment 95%
- Structural and functional features characterizing the brains of individuals with higher controllability of motor imagery 95%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.