Skip to main content
Journal cover image

A comparison of methods to harmonize cortical thickness measurements across scanners and sites.

Publication ,  Journal Article
Sun, D; Rakesh, G; Haswell, CC; Logue, M; Baird, CL; O'Leary, EN; Cotton, AS; Xie, H; Tamburrino, M; Chen, T; Dennis, EL; Jahanshad, N; Li, G ...
Published in: Neuroimage
November 1, 2022

Results of neuroimaging datasets aggregated from multiple sites may be biased by site-specific profiles in participants' demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as MRI acquisition protocols and scanning platforms. We compared the impact of four different harmonization methods on results obtained from analyses of cortical thickness data: (1) linear mixed-effects model (LME) that models site-specific random intercepts (LMEINT), (2) LME that models both site-specific random intercepts and age-related random slopes (LMEINT+SLP), (3) ComBat, and (4) ComBat with a generalized additive model (ComBat-GAM). Our test case for comparing harmonization methods was cortical thickness data aggregated from 29 sites, which included 1,340 cases with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (6.2-81.8 years old) and 2,057 trauma-exposed controls without PTSD (6.3-85.2 years old). We found that, compared to the other data harmonization methods, data processed with ComBat-GAM was more sensitive to the detection of significant case-control differences (Χ2(3) = 63.704, p < 0.001) as well as case-control differences in age-related cortical thinning (Χ2(3) = 12.082, p = 0.007). Both ComBat and ComBat-GAM outperformed LME methods in detecting sex differences (Χ2(3) = 9.114, p = 0.028) in regional cortical thickness. ComBat-GAM also led to stronger estimates of age-related declines in cortical thickness (corrected p-values < 0.001), stronger estimates of case-related cortical thickness reduction (corrected p-values < 0.001), weaker estimates of age-related declines in cortical thickness in cases than controls (corrected p-values < 0.001), stronger estimates of cortical thickness reduction in females than males (corrected p-values < 0.001), and stronger estimates of cortical thickness reduction in females relative to males in cases than controls (corrected p-values < 0.001). Our results support the use of ComBat-GAM to minimize confounds and increase statistical power when harmonizing data with non-linear effects, and the use of either ComBat or ComBat-GAM for harmonizing data with linear effects.

Duke Scholars

Published In

Neuroimage

DOI

EISSN

1095-9572

Publication Date

November 1, 2022

Volume

261

Start / End Page

119509

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Young Adult
  • Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic
  • Neurology & Neurosurgery
  • Neuroimaging
  • Middle Aged
  • Male
  • Magnetic Resonance Imaging
  • Humans
  • Female
  • Child
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Sun, D., Rakesh, G., Haswell, C. C., Logue, M., Baird, C. L., O’Leary, E. N., … Morey, R. A. (2022). A comparison of methods to harmonize cortical thickness measurements across scanners and sites. Neuroimage, 261, 119509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119509
Sun, Delin, Gopalkumar Rakesh, Courtney C. Haswell, Mark Logue, C Lexi Baird, Erin N. O’Leary, Andrew S. Cotton, et al. “A comparison of methods to harmonize cortical thickness measurements across scanners and sites.Neuroimage 261 (November 1, 2022): 119509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119509.
Sun D, Rakesh G, Haswell CC, Logue M, Baird CL, O’Leary EN, et al. A comparison of methods to harmonize cortical thickness measurements across scanners and sites. Neuroimage. 2022 Nov 1;261:119509.
Sun, Delin, et al. “A comparison of methods to harmonize cortical thickness measurements across scanners and sites.Neuroimage, vol. 261, Nov. 2022, p. 119509. Pubmed, doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119509.
Sun D, Rakesh G, Haswell CC, Logue M, Baird CL, O’Leary EN, Cotton AS, Xie H, Tamburrino M, Chen T, Dennis EL, Jahanshad N, Salminen LE, Thomopoulos SI, Rashid F, Ching CRK, Koch SBJ, Frijling JL, Nawijn L, van Zuiden M, Zhu X, Suarez-Jimenez B, Sierk A, Walter H, Manthey A, Stevens JS, Fani N, van Rooij SJH, Stein M, Bomyea J, Koerte IK, Choi K, van der Werff SJA, Vermeiren RRJM, Herzog J, Lebois LAM, Baker JT, Olson EA, Straube T, Korgaonkar MS, Andrew E, Zhu Y, Li G, Ipser J, Hudson AR, Peverill M, Sambrook K, Gordon E, Baugh L, Forster G, Simons RM, Simons JS, Magnotta V, Maron-Katz A, du Plessis S, Disner SG, Davenport N, Grupe DW, Nitschke JB, deRoon-Cassini TA, Fitzgerald JM, Krystal JH, Levy I, Olff M, Veltman DJ, Wang L, Neria Y, De Bellis MD, Jovanovic T, Daniels JK, Shenton M, van de Wee NJA, Schmahl C, Kaufman ML, Rosso IM, Sponheim SR, Hofmann DB, Bryant RA, Fercho KA, Stein DJ, Mueller SC, Hosseini B, Phan KL, McLaughlin KA, Davidson RJ, Larson CL, May G, Nelson SM, Abdallah CG, Gomaa H, Etkin A, Seedat S, Harpaz-Rotem I, Liberzon I, van Erp TGM, Quidé Y, Wang X, Thompson PM, Morey RA. A comparison of methods to harmonize cortical thickness measurements across scanners and sites. Neuroimage. 2022 Nov 1;261:119509.
Journal cover image

Published In

Neuroimage

DOI

EISSN

1095-9572

Publication Date

November 1, 2022

Volume

261

Start / End Page

119509

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Young Adult
  • Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic
  • Neurology & Neurosurgery
  • Neuroimaging
  • Middle Aged
  • Male
  • Magnetic Resonance Imaging
  • Humans
  • Female
  • Child