Back

Pooling quantitative MRI data: A multi-protocol study of healthy subcortical ageing

Zubkov, M.; Pine, K.; Bazin, P. L.; Talwar, P.; Mortazavi, N.; Dauby, S.; Geron, C.; Beckers, E.; Lamalle, L.; Phillips, C.; Collette, F.; Maquet, P.; Lommers, E.; Alkemade, A.; Weiskopf, N.; Vandewalle, G.; Kirilina, E.

2026-01-08 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.01.07.698256 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Quantitative MRI (qMRI) measures relaxation rates, exchange rates and proton densities that reflect biophysical properties of tissue and are ideally free from protocol- and scanner-dependence. In practice, qMRI has not yet achieved this level of independence from sequence and hardware choice, and quantitative estimates often differ across sites and acquisition schemes. At the same time pooling data across different sources can be beneficial to statistical power of longitudinal, cross-sectional or case-control studies. Here we investigate how protocol and hardware differences can affect pooling data from different sources in large ultra high field (UHF) qMRI studies in the context of healthy aging. We combine the openly available ageing UHF qMRI MP2RAGEME-based dataset with two different MPM-based sets of qMRI data. We evaluate how pooling affects age dependence of qMRI parameters and investigate protocol-related biases, with a particular focus on subcortical structures. We focus the analysis, first, on replication and expansion of the reference qMRI dataset on normative aging, second, the examination of the protocol influence on the estimated qMRI values, and third, on detecting the protocol effect on the age dependence inferred from the data. We find that the age-related changes for R1 measure around 4-17% of the lifespan mean in different structures. Similarly, age-related R2* variation in different structures constitutes around 6-30%. Subcortical structure volume change is on the order of 5-27%. We further observe larger relative difference between protocols for R1 and volume, while R2* remains more consistent for most regions. We show how pooling the UHF qMRI data from different sites and collected with different quantitative protocols can be both detrimental and beneficial for the analysis outcomes.

Published in Imaging Neuroscience (predicted rank #4) · training set

Matching journals

The top 4 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.