Heath R Pardoe1, David F Abbott, Graeme D Jackson. 1. Brain Research Institute, Florey Neuroscience Institutes, Melbourne Brain Centre, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia; Department of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cortical thickness mapping is a widely used method for the analysis of neuroanatomical differences between subject groups. We applied power analysis methods over a range of image processing parameters to derive a model that allows researchers to calculate the number of subjects required to ensure a well-powered cross-sectional cortical thickness study. METHODS: 0.9-mm isotropic T1 -weighted 3D MPRAGE MRI scans from 98 controls (53 females, age 29.1 ± 9.7 years) were processed using Freesurfer 5.0. Power analyses were carried out using vertex-wise variance estimates from the coregistered cortical thickness maps, systematically varying processing parameters. A genetic programming approach was used to derive a model describing the relationship between sample size and processing parameters. The model was validated on four Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative control datasets (mean 126.5 subjects/site, age 76.6 ± 5.0 years). RESULTS: Approximately 50 subjects per group are required to detect a 0.25-mm thickness difference; less than 10 subjects per group are required for differences of 1 mm (two-sided test, 10 mm smoothing, α = 0.05). Sample size estimates were heterogeneous over the cortical surface. The model yielded sample size predictions within 2-6% of that determined experimentally using independent data from four other datasets. Fitting parameters of the model to data from each site reduced the estimation error to less than 2%. CONCLUSIONS: The derived model provides a simple tool for researchers to calculate how many subjects should be included in a well-powered cortical thickness analysis.
INTRODUCTION: Cortical thickness mapping is a widely used method for the analysis of neuroanatomical differences between subject groups. We applied power analysis methods over a range of image processing parameters to derive a model that allows researchers to calculate the number of subjects required to ensure a well-powered cross-sectional cortical thickness study. METHODS: 0.9-mm isotropic T1 -weighted 3D MPRAGE MRI scans from 98 controls (53 females, age 29.1 ± 9.7 years) were processed using Freesurfer 5.0. Power analyses were carried out using vertex-wise variance estimates from the coregistered cortical thickness maps, systematically varying processing parameters. A genetic programming approach was used to derive a model describing the relationship between sample size and processing parameters. The model was validated on four Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative control datasets (mean 126.5 subjects/site, age 76.6 ± 5.0 years). RESULTS: Approximately 50 subjects per group are required to detect a 0.25-mm thickness difference; less than 10 subjects per group are required for differences of 1 mm (two-sided test, 10 mm smoothing, α = 0.05). Sample size estimates were heterogeneous over the cortical surface. The model yielded sample size predictions within 2-6% of that determined experimentally using independent data from four other datasets. Fitting parameters of the model to data from each site reduced the estimation error to less than 2%. CONCLUSIONS: The derived model provides a simple tool for researchers to calculate how many subjects should be included in a well-powered cortical thickness analysis.
Authors: Elizabeth R Sowell; Paul M Thompson; Christiana M Leonard; Suzanne E Welcome; Eric Kan; Arthur W Toga Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2004-09-22 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Sara W Lazar; Catherine E Kerr; Rachel H Wasserman; Jeremy R Gray; Douglas N Greve; Michael T Treadway; Metta McGarvey; Brian T Quinn; Jeffery A Dusek; Herbert Benson; Scott L Rauch; Christopher I Moore; Bruce Fischl Journal: Neuroreport Date: 2005-11-28 Impact factor: 1.837
Authors: C Tunnard; D Whitehead; C Hurt; L O Wahlund; P Mecocci; M Tsolaki; B Vellas; C Spenger; I Kłoszewska; H Soininen; S Lovestone; A Simmons Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2010-09-27 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: H D Rosas; A K Liu; S Hersch; M Glessner; R J Ferrante; D H Salat; A van der Kouwe; B G Jenkins; A M Dale; B Fischl Journal: Neurology Date: 2002-03-12 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Jason P Lerch; Jens C Pruessner; Alex Zijdenbos; Harald Hampel; Stefan J Teipel; Alan C Evans Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2004-11-10 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: David H Salat; Randy L Buckner; Abraham Z Snyder; Douglas N Greve; Rahul S R Desikan; Evelina Busa; John C Morris; Anders M Dale; Bruce Fischl Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2004-03-28 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: Gina R Kuperberg; Matthew R Broome; Philip K McGuire; Anthony S David; Marianna Eddy; Fujiro Ozawa; Donald Goff; W Caroline West; Steven C R Williams; Andre J W van der Kouwe; David H Salat; Anders M Dale; Bruce Fischl Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2003-09
Authors: Timothy B Meier; Patrick S F Bellgowan; Maurizio Bergamino; Josef M Ling; Andrew R Mayer Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2015-08-17 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Michael W Weiner; Dallas P Veitch; Paul S Aisen; Laurel A Beckett; Nigel J Cairns; Jesse Cedarbaum; Robert C Green; Danielle Harvey; Clifford R Jack; William Jagust; Johan Luthman; John C Morris; Ronald C Petersen; Andrew J Saykin; Leslie Shaw; Li Shen; Adam Schwarz; Arthur W Toga; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Sarah K Madsen; Priya Rajagopalan; Shantanu H Joshi; Arthur W Toga; Paul M Thompson Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2014-08-30 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Marcos E Domínguez-Arriola; Víctor E Olalde-Mathieu; Eduardo A Garza-Villarreal; Fernando A Barrios Journal: Brain Topogr Date: 2022-08-21 Impact factor: 4.275
Authors: Serhiy Y Chumachenko; Joseph T Sakai; Manish S Dalwani; Susan K Mikulich-Gilbertson; Robin Dunn; Jody Tanabe; Susan Young; Shannon K McWilliams; Marie T Banich; Thomas J Crowley Journal: Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse Date: 2015 Impact factor: 3.829