Back

Brain Size: To Adjust or Not Adjust? It's Not a Matter of If, but How

Brzezinski-Rittner, A.; Moqadam, R.; Zeighami, Y.; Dadar, M.

2025-09-29 neurology
10.1101/2025.09.21.25336298 medRxiv
Show 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. 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 these 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, 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.

Published in Imaging Neuroscience (predicted rank #3) · training set

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts 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.