Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 190

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Statistical adjustments for brain size in volumetric neuroimaging studies: Some practical implications in methods

Open access
O'Brien, Liam M., Ziegler, David A., Deutsch, Curtis K., Frazier, Jean A., Herbert, Martha R., Locascio, Joseph J.·2011·Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging

Abstract

Volumetric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain data provide a valuable tool for detecting structural differences associated with various neurological and psychiatric disorders. Analysis of such data, however, is not always straightforward, and complications can arise when trying to determine which brain structures are “smaller” or “larger” in light of the high degree of individual variability across the population. Several statistical methods for adjusting for individual differences in overall cranial or brain size have been used in the literature, but critical differences exist between them. Using agreement among those methods as an indication of stronger support of a hypothesis is dangerous given that each requires a different set of assumptions be met. Here we examine the theoretical underpinnings of three of these adjustment methods (proportion, residual, and analysis of covariance) and apply them to a volumetric MRI data set. These three methods used for adjusting for brain size are specific cases of a generalized approach which we propose as a recommended modeling strategy. We assess the level of agreement among methods and provide graphical tools to assist researchers in determining how they differ in the types of relationships they can unmask, and provide a useful method by which researchers may tease out important relationships in volumetric MRI data. We conclude with the recommended procedure involving the use of graphical analyses to help uncover potential relationships the ROI volumes may have with head size and give a generalized modeling strategy by which researchers can make such adjustments that include as special cases the three commonly employed methods mentioned above.

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.pscychresns.2011.01.007

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 190

Metadata

Authors
O'Brien, L. M., Ziegler, D. A., Deutsch, C. K., Frazier, J. A., Herbert, M. R., & Locascio, J. J.
Venue
Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-08
Volume
193
Issue
2
Pages
113-122
ISSN
0925-4927 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2028845695
Cited by
190
References
1
FWCI
1.66
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: Statistical adjustments for brain size in volumetric neuroimaging studies: Some practical implications in methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2011.01.007
The paper
O'Brien, L. M., Ziegler, D. A., Deutsch, C. K., Frazier, J. A., Herbert, M. R., & Locascio, J. J. (2011). Statistical adjustments for brain size in volumetric neuroimaging studies: Some practical implications in methods. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2011.01.007

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.