Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 319

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

Longitudinal ComBat: A method for harmonizing longitudinal multi-scanner imaging data

Open access
Beer, Joanne C., Tustison, Nicholas J., Cook, Philip A., Davatzikos, Christos, Sheline, Yvette I., Shinohara, Russell T., Linn, Kristin A.·2020·NeuroImage

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

While aggregation of neuroimaging datasets from multiple sites and scanners can yield increased statistical power, it also presents challenges due to systematic scanner effects. This unwanted technical variability can introduce noise and bias into estimation of biological variability of interest. We propose a method for harmonizing longitudinal multi-scanner imaging data based on ComBat, a method originally developed for genomics and later adapted to cross-sectional neuroimaging data. Using longitudinal cortical thickness measurements from 663 participants in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) study, we demonstrate the presence of additive and multiplicative scanner effects in various brain regions. We compare estimates of the association between diagnosis and change in cortical thickness over time using three versions of the ADNI data: unharmonized data, data harmonized using cross-sectional ComBat, and data harmonized using longitudinal ComBat. In simulation studies, we show that longitudinal ComBat is more powerful for detecting longitudinal change than cross-sectional ComBat and controls the type I error rate better than unharmonized data with scanner included as a covariate. The proposed method would be useful for other types of longitudinal data requiring harmonization, such as genomic data, or neuroimaging studies of neurodevelopment, psychiatric disorders, or other neurological diseases.

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.2020.117129

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

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. Bakkour, 2009, The cortical signature of prodromal AD: regional thinning predicts mild AD dementia, Neurology, 72, 1048, 10.1212/01.wnl.0000340981.97664.2f · DOI · Paper page
  2. Conover, 1981, A comparative study of tests for homogeneity of variances, with applications to the outer continental shelf bidding data, Technometrics, 23, 351, 10.1080/00401706.1981.10487680 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Dewey, 2019, DeepHarmony: a deep learning approach to contrast harmonization across scanner changes, Magn. Reson. Imag., 64, 160, 10.1016/j.mri.2019.05.041 · DOI
  4. Dickerson, 2008, The cortical signature of Alzheimer’s disease: regionally specific cortical thinning relates to symptom severity in very mild to mild AD dementia and is detectable in asymptomatic amyloid-positive individuals, Cerebr. Cortex, 19, 497, 10.1093/cercor/bhn113 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Donix, 2010, Longitudinal changes in medial temporal cortical thickness in normal subjects with the apoe-4 polymorphism, Neuroimage, 53, 37, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.06.009 · DOI
  6. Erus, 2018, Longitudinally and inter-site consistent multi-atlas based parcellation of brain anatomy using harmonized atlases, Neuroimage, 166, 71, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.10.026 · DOI
  7. Fortin, 2017, Harmonization of multi-site diffusion tensor imaging data, Neuroimage, 161, 149, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.08.047 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Gunter, 2009, Measurement of MRI scanner performance with the ADNI phantom, Med. Phys., 36, 2193, 10.1118/1.3116776 · DOI
  9. Jovicich, 2006, Reliability in multi-site structural MRI studies: effects of gradient non-linearity correction on phantom and human data, Neuroimage, 30, 436, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.09.046 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Klein, 2012, 101 labeled brain images and a consistent human cortical labeling protocol, Front. Neurosci., 6, 171, 10.3389/fnins.2012.00171 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Lee, 2019, Estimating and accounting for the effect of MRI scanner changes on longitudinal whole-brain volume change measurements, Neuroimage, 184, 555, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.09.062 · DOI
  12. Müller, 2016, Removing batch effects from longitudinal gene expression-quantile normalization plus ComBat as best approach for microarray transcriptome data, PloS One, 11, 10.1371/journal.pone.0156594 · DOI
  13. Orlhac, 2018, A postreconstruction harmonization method for multicenter radiomic studies in PET, J. Nucl. Med., 59, 1321, 10.2967/jnumed.117.199935 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Patterson, 1971, Recovery of inter-block information when block sizes are unequal, Biometrika, 58, 545, 10.1093/biomet/58.3.545 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Pomponio, 2020, Harmonization of large MRI datasets for the analysis of brain imaging patterns throughout the lifespan, Neuroimage, 208, 116450, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116450 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Shinohara, 2017, Volumetric analysis from a harmonized multisite brain MRI study of a single subject with multiple sclerosis, Am. J. Neuroradiol., 38, 1501, 10.3174/ajnr.A5254 · DOI
  17. Takao, 2011, Effect of scanner in longitudinal studies of brain volume changes, J. Magn. Reson. Imag., 34, 438, 10.1002/jmri.22636 · DOI
  18. Tustison, 2019, Longitudinal mapping of cortical thickness measurements: an Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative-based evaluation study, J. Alzheim. Dis., 71, 165, 10.3233/JAD-190283 · DOI
  19. Venkatraman, 2015, Region of interest correction factors improve reliability of diffusion imaging measures within and across scanners and field strengths, Neuroimage, 119, 406, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.06.078 · DOI
  20. Yu, 2018, Statistical harmonization corrects site effects in functional connectivity measurements from multi-site fMRI data, Hum. Brain Mapp., 39, 4213, 10.1002/hbm.24241 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 319

Metadata

Authors
Beer, J. C., Tustison, N. J., Cook, P. A., Davatzikos, C., Sheline, Y. I., Shinohara, R. T., & Linn, K. A.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-10
Volume
220
Pages
117129
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3038220767
Cited by
319
References
8
FWCI
18.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold
Licence
Funders
  • Genentech
  • Johnson and Johnson
  • Merck
  • Janssen Research and Development
  • H. Lundbeck A/S
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
  • IXICO
  • U.S. Department of Defense (W81XWH-12-2-0012)
  • Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative
  • National Institute of Mental Health (T32 MH106442, U01 MH109991)
  • Northern California Institute for Research and Education
  • National Institute on Aging
  • Fujirebio US
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01 NS060910, R01 NS085211)
  • University of Southern California
  • National Institutes of Health (U01 AG024904)
  • GE Healthcare

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

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.