Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 164

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Retrospective harmonization of multi-site diffusion MRI data acquired with different acquisition parameters

Open access
Cetin Karayumak, Suheyla, Bouix, Sylvain, Ning, Lipeng, James, Anthony, Crow, Tim, Shenton, Martha, Kubicki, Marek, Rathi, Yogesh·2019·NeuroImage

Abstract

A joint and integrated analysis of multi-site diffusion MRI (dMRI) datasets can dramatically increase the statistical power of neuroimaging studies and enable comparative studies pertaining to several brain disorders. However, dMRI data sets acquired on multiple scanners cannot be naively pooled for joint analysis due to scanner specific nonlinear effects as well as differences in acquisition parameters. Consequently, for joint analysis, the dMRI data has to be harmonized, which involves removing scanner-specific differences from the raw dMRI signal. In this work, we present a dMRI harmonization method that, when applied to multi-site data, is capable of removing scanner-specific effects, while accounting for minor differences in acquisition parameters such as b-value, spatial resolution and number of gradient directions in the dMRI data (typical for multi-site clinical research scans). We validate our algorithm on dMRI data acquired from two sites: Philadelphia Neurodevelopmental Cohort (PNC) with 800 healthy adolescents (ages 8 to 22 years) and Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) with 70 healthy subjects (ages 14 to 54 years). In particular, we show that gender differences and maturation in different age groups are preserved after harmonization, as measured using effect sizes (small, medium and large), irrespective of the test sample size. Further, because we use matched control subjects from different scanners to estimate scanner-specific effects, we tested how many subjects are needed from each site to achieve best harmonization results. Our results indicate that at-least 16 to 18 well-matched healthy controls from each site are needed to reliably capture scanner related differences. The proposed method can thus be used for retrospective harmonization of raw dMRI data across sites despite differences in acquisition parameters, while preserving inter-subject anatomical variability.

Overview

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.2018.08.073

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Cited by

See all 164

Metadata

Authors
Cetin Karayumak, S., Bouix, S., Ning, L., James, A., Crow, T., Shenton, M., Kubicki, M., & Rathi, Y.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-01
Volume
184
Pages
180-200
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2951944555
Cited by
164
References
8
FWCI
9.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Retrospective harmonization of multi-site diffusion MRI data acquired with different acquisition parameters. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.08.073
The paper
Cetin Karayumak, S., Bouix, S., Ning, L., James, A., Crow, T., Shenton, M., Kubicki, M., & Rathi, Y. (2019). Retrospective harmonization of multi-site diffusion MRI data acquired with different acquisition parameters. NeuroImage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.08.073

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.