Allan George1, Ruben Kuzniecky2, Henry Rusinek3, Heath R Pardoe1. 1. Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, Department of Neurology, NYU Langone Health, NY. 2. Department of Neurology, Northwell Health, NY. 3. Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, NY.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In this study, we used power analysis to calculate required sample sizes to detect group-level changes in quantitative neuroanatomical estimates derived from MRI scans obtained from multiple imaging centers. Sample size estimates were derived from (i) standardized 3T image acquisition protocols and (ii) nonstandardized clinically acquired images obtained at both 1.5 and 3T as part of the multicenter Human Epilepsy Project. Sample size estimates were compared to assess the benefit of standardizing acquisition protocols. METHODS: Cortical thickness, hippocampal volume, and whole brain volume were estimated from whole brain T1-weighted MRI scans processed using Freesurfer v6.0. Sample sizes required to detect a range of effect sizes were calculated using (i) standard t-test based power analysis methods and (ii) a nonparametric bootstrap approach. RESULTS: A total of 32 participants were included in our analyses, aged 29.9 ± 12.62 years. Standard deviation estimates were lower for all quantitative neuroanatomical metrics when assessed using standardized protocols. Required sample sizes per group to detect a given effect size were markedly reduced when using standardized protocols, particularly for cortical thickness changes <.2 mm and hippocampal volume changes <10%. CONCLUSIONS: The use of standardized protocols yielded up to a five-fold reduction in required sample sizes to detect disease-related neuroanatomical changes, and is particularly beneficial for detecting subtle effects. Standardizing image acquisition protocols across scanners prior to commencing a study is a valuable approach to increase the statistical power of multicenter MRI studies.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In this study, we used power analysis to calculate required sample sizes to detect group-level changes in quantitative neuroanatomical estimates derived from MRI scans obtained from multiple imaging centers. Sample size estimates were derived from (i) standardized 3T image acquisition protocols and (ii) nonstandardized clinically acquired images obtained at both 1.5 and 3T as part of the multicenter HumanEpilepsy Project. Sample size estimates were compared to assess the benefit of standardizing acquisition protocols. METHODS: Cortical thickness, hippocampal volume, and whole brain volume were estimated from whole brain T1-weighted MRI scans processed using Freesurfer v6.0. Sample sizes required to detect a range of effect sizes were calculated using (i) standard t-test based power analysis methods and (ii) a nonparametric bootstrap approach. RESULTS: A total of 32 participants were included in our analyses, aged 29.9 ± 12.62 years. Standard deviation estimates were lower for all quantitative neuroanatomical metrics when assessed using standardized protocols. Required sample sizes per group to detect a given effect size were markedly reduced when using standardized protocols, particularly for cortical thickness changes <.2 mm and hippocampal volume changes <10%. CONCLUSIONS: The use of standardized protocols yielded up to a five-fold reduction in required sample sizes to detect disease-related neuroanatomical changes, and is particularly beneficial for detecting subtle effects. Standardizing image acquisition protocols across scanners prior to commencing a study is a valuable approach to increase the statistical power of multicenter MRI studies.
Authors: Hugo G Schnack; Neeltje E M van Haren; Hilleke E Hulshoff Pol; Marco Picchioni; Matthias Weisbrod; Heinrich Sauer; Tyrone Cannon; Matti Huttunen; Robin Murray; René S Kahn Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Hugo G Schnack; Neeltje E M van Haren; Rachel M Brouwer; G Caroline M van Baal; Marco Picchioni; Matthias Weisbrod; Heinrich Sauer; Tyrone D Cannon; Matti Huttunen; Claude Lepage; D Louis Collins; Alan Evans; Robin M Murray; René S Kahn; Hilleke E Hulshoff Pol Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2010-04-16 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Xiao Han; Jorge Jovicich; David Salat; Andre van der Kouwe; Brian Quinn; Silvester Czanner; Evelina Busa; Jenni Pacheco; Marilyn Albert; Ronald Killiany; Paul Maguire; Diana Rosas; Nikos Makris; Anders Dale; Bradford Dickerson; Bruce Fischl Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2006-05-02 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Lee Friedman; Hal Stern; Gregory G Brown; Daniel H Mathalon; Jessica Turner; Gary H Glover; Randy L Gollub; John Lauriello; Kelvin O Lim; Tyrone Cannon; Douglas N Greve; Henry Jeremy Bockholt; Aysenil Belger; Bryon Mueller; Michael J Doty; Jianchun He; William Wells; Padhraic Smyth; Steve Pieper; Seyoung Kim; Marek Kubicki; Mark Vangel; Steven G Potkin Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Philip Shaw; Jason Lerch; Deanna Greenstein; Wendy Sharp; Liv Clasen; Alan Evans; Jay Giedd; F Xavier Castellanos; Judith Rapoport Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2006-05
Authors: Alicia S Chua; Svetlana Egorova; Mark C Anderson; Mariann Polgar-Turcsanyi; Tanuja Chitnis; Howard L Weiner; Charles R G Guttmann; Rohit Bakshi; Brian C Healy Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2015-07-02 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: John Virostko; Richard C Craddock; Jonathan M Williams; Taylor M Triolo; Melissa A Hilmes; Hakmook Kang; Liping Du; Jordan J Wright; Mara Kinney; Jeffrey H Maki; Milica Medved; Michaela Waibel; Thomas W H Kay; Helen E Thomas; Siri Atma W Greeley; Andrea K Steck; Daniel J Moore; Alvin C Powers Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-08-24 Impact factor: 3.240