Back

Cross-site harmonization of diffusion MRI data without matched training subjects

De Luca, A.; Swartenbroekx, T.; Seelaar, H.; van Swieten, J. C.; Cetin Karayumak, S.; Rathi, Y.; Pasternak, O.; Jiskoot, L. C.; Leemans, A.

2025-02-28 bioinformatics
10.1101/2024.05.01.591994 bioRxiv
Show abstract

PurposeDiffusion MRI (dMRI) data typically suffer of significant cross-site variability, which prevents naively performing pooled analyses. To attenuate cross-site variability, harmonization methods such as the rotational invariant spherical harmonics (RISH) have been introduced to harmonize the dMRI data at the signal level. A common requirement of the RISH method, is the availability of healthy individuals who are matched at the group level, which may not always be readily available, particularly retrospectively. In this work, we propose a framework to harmonize dMRI without matched training groups. MethodsOur framework learns harmonization features while controlling for potential covariates using a voxel-based generalized linear model (RISH-GLM). RISH-GLM allows to simultaneously harmonize data from any number of sites while also accounting for covariates of interest, thus not requiring matched training subjects. Additionally, RISH-GLM can harmonize data from multiple sites in a single step, whereas RISH is performed for each site independently. ResultsWe considered data of training subjects from retrospective cohorts acquired with 3 different scanners and performed 3 harmonization experiments of increasing complexity. First, we demonstrate that RISH-GLM is equivalent to conventional RISH when trained with data of matched training subjects. Secondly, we demonstrate that RISH-GLM can effectively learn harmonization with two groups of highly unmatched subjects. Thirdly, we evaluate the ability of RISH-GLM to simultaneously harmonize data from 3 different sites. DiscussionRISH-GLM can learn cross-site harmonization both from matched and unmatched groups of training subjects, and can effectively be used to harmonize data of multiple sites in one single step.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.