Cited by 396Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyCerebrovascular and genetic disorders

Multi-site genetic analysis of diffusion images and voxelwise heritability analysis: a pilot project of the ENIGMA-DTI working group

Open access
Jahanshad, Neda, Kochunov, Peter V., Sprooten, Emma, Mandl, René C., Nichols, Thomas E., Almasy, Laura, Blangero, John, Brouwer, Rachel M. +23 more·2013·NeuroImage

Abstract

The ENIGMA (Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis) Consortium was set up to analyze brain measures and genotypes from multiple sites across the world to improve the power to detect genetic variants that influence the brain. Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) yields quantitative measures sensitive to brain development and degeneration, and some common genetic variants may be associated with white matter integrity or connectivity. DTI measures, such as the fractional anisotropy (FA) of water diffusion, may be useful for identifying genetic variants that influence brain microstructure. However, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) require large populations to obtain sufficient power to detect and replicate significant effects, motivating a multi-site consortium effort. As part of an ENIGMA-DTI working group, we analyzed high-resolution FA images from multiple imaging sites across North America, Australia, and Europe, to address the challenge of harmonizing imaging data collected at multiple sites. Four hundred images of healthy adults aged 18-85 from four sites were used to create a template and corresponding skeletonized FA image as a common reference space. Using twin and pedigree samples of different ethnicities, we used our common template to evaluate the heritability of tract-derived FA measures. We show that our template is reliable for integrating multiple datasets by combining results through meta-analysis and unifying the data through exploratory mega-analyses. Our results may help prioritize regions of the FA map that are consistently influenced by additive genetic factors for future genetic discovery studies. Protocols and templates are publicly available at (http://enigma.loni.ucla.edu/ongoing/dti-working-group/).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.061

Cites

85 of 85 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The CST ROI from the JHU WMPM atlas is limited to a small region in the inferior portion of the brain and has been shown to be the least reliable and reproducible ROI.

    “However, the CST ROI from the JHU WMPM atlas is limited to a small region in the inferior portion of the brain and has been shown to be the least reliable and reproducible ROI (Jahanshad et al., 2013; Acheson et al., 2017)”

    From Diffusion MRI Indices and Their Relation to Cognitive Impairment in Brain Aging: The Updated Multi-protocol Approach in ADNI3 (2019) · cites this paper as Jahanshad et al., 2013

    The Methods (Region of interest extraction; page unavailable) identify the JHU white matter parcellation atlas, and the Results (Meta and mega analyses; page unavailable) describe the CST as small and, with the fornix, among the least heritable regions and difficult to register. The Discussion cautions that CST may not be a reliable endophenotype in multisite studies. These passages do not establish that its atlas ROI is confined to an inferior brain region or that it is the least reliable and reproducible ROI. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Many large-scale multi-site DTI studies have obtained consistent results even when acquisition protocols across sites are not harmonized in advance.

    “Although many large-scale multi-site DTI studies have obtained consistent results even when acquisition protocols across sites are not harmonized in advance (Jahanshad et al., 2013; Kochunov et al., 2014; Acheson et al., 2017; Kelly et al., 2018), differences in dMRI acquisition parameters, including vendor, voxel size, and angular resolution, are known to affect derived dMRI measures (Alexander”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 86 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jahanshad, N., Kochunov, P. V., Sprooten, E., Mandl, R. C., Nichols, T. E., Almasy, L., Blangero, J., Brouwer, R. M., Curran, J. E., de Zubicaray, G. I., Duggirala, R., Fox, P. T., Hong, L. E., Landman, B. A., Martin, N. G., McMahon, K. L., Medland, S. E., Mitchell, B. D., Olvera, R. L., Peterson, C. P., Starr, J. M., Sussmann, J. E., Toga, A. W., Wardlaw, J. M., Wright, M. J., Hulshoff Pol, H. E., Bastin, M. E., McIntosh, A. M., Deary, I. J., Thompson, P. M., & Glahn, D. C.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
  • Royal Edinburgh Hospital (GB)
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
  • Texas Biomedical Research Institute (US)
  • The University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center (US)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute (AU)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • Yale University (US)
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-11
Volume
81
Pages
455-469
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2118347577
Cited by
393
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 16
FWCI
27.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2014-04-15)
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Faculty of Health; Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation
Funders
  • R01 HD050735 (486682)
  • R01 EB015611 (EB008432, EB008281, EB007813)
  • MH0708143 (FT0991634)
  • MH083824 (087727/Z/08/Z)
  • MH078111
  • MH59490
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC
  • NIH (EB015611-01, U54MH091657-03)
  • ARC Future Fellowship
  • Wellcome Trust
  • NARSAD Independent Investigator Award
  • Scottish Funding Council Senior Clinical Fellowship
  • Academy of Medical Sciences/Health Foundation Clinician Scientist Fellowship
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Cerebrovascular and genetic disorders
Keywords
diffusion tensor imaging, fractional anisotropy, heritability, white matter integrity, ENIGMA consortium, mega-analysis
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Brain, Brain Mapping, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Male, Middle Aged, Pilot Projects, Registries, Anisotropy, Young Adult, Diffusion Tensor Imaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review