Christopher P Cheng1, Yaroslav O Halchenko2. 1. Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, 03755, USA. 2. Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, 03755, USA.
Abstract
Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an important yet complex data acquisition technology for studying the brain. MRI signals can be affected by many factors and many sources of variance are often simply attributed to "noise". Unexplained variance in MRI data hinders the statistical power of MRI studies and affects their reproducibility. We hypothesized that it would be possible to use phantom data as a proxy of scanner characteristics with a simplistic model of seasonal variation to explain some variance in human MRI data. Methods: We used MRI data from human participants collected in several studies, as well as phantom data collected weekly for scanner quality assurance (QA) purposes. From phantom data we identified the variables most likely to explain variance in acquired data and assessed their statistical significance by using them to model signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), a fundamental MRI QA metric. We then included phantom data SNR in the models of morphometric measures obtained from human anatomical MRI data from the same scanner. Results: Phantom SNR and seasonal variation, after multiple comparisons correction, were statistically significant predictors of the volume of gray brain matter. However, a sweep over 16 other brain matter areas and types revealed no statistically significant predictors among phantom SNR or seasonal variables after multiple comparison correction. Conclusions: Seasonal variation and phantom SNR may be important factors to account for in MRI studies. Our results show weak support that seasonal variations are primarily caused by biological human factors instead of scanner performance variation. The phantom QA metric and scanning parameters are useful for more than just QA. Using QA metrics, scanning parameters, and seasonal variation data can help account for some variance in MRI studies, thus making them more powerful and reproducible. Copyright:
Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an important yet complex data acquisition technology for studying the brain. MRI signals can be affected by many factors and many sources of variance are often simply attributed to "noise". Unexplained variance in MRI data hinders the statistical power of MRI studies and affects their reproducibility. We hypothesized that it would be possible to use phantom data as a proxy of scanner characteristics with a simplistic model of seasonal variation to explain some variance in human MRI data. Methods: We used MRI data from humanparticipants collected in several studies, as well as phantom data collected weekly for scanner quality assurance (QA) purposes. From phantom data we identified the variables most likely to explain variance in acquired data and assessed their statistical significance by using them to model signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), a fundamental MRI QA metric. We then included phantom data SNR in the models of morphometric measures obtained from human anatomical MRI data from the same scanner. Results: Phantom SNR and seasonal variation, after multiple comparisons correction, were statistically significant predictors of the volume of gray brain matter. However, a sweep over 16 other brain matter areas and types revealed no statistically significant predictors among phantom SNR or seasonal variables after multiple comparison correction. Conclusions: Seasonal variation and phantom SNR may be important factors to account for in MRI studies. Our results show weak support that seasonal variations are primarily caused by biological human factors instead of scanner performance variation. The phantom QA metric and scanning parameters are useful for more than just QA. Using QA metrics, scanning parameters, and seasonal variation data can help account for some variance in MRI studies, thus making them more powerful and reproducible. Copyright:
Authors: Aaron Trefler; Neda Sadeghi; Adam G Thomas; Carlo Pierpaoli; Chris I Baker; Cibu Thomas Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Guo Jiahui; Ma Feilong; Matteo Visconti di Oleggio Castello; J Swaroop Guntupalli; Vassiki Chauhan; James V Haxby; M Ida Gobbini Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2019-12-13 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Christelle Meyer; Vincenzo Muto; Mathieu Jaspar; Caroline Kussé; Erik Lambot; Sarah L Chellappa; Christian Degueldre; Evelyne Balteau; André Luxen; Benita Middleton; Simon N Archer; Fabienne Collette; Derk-Jan Dijk; Christophe Phillips; Pierre Maquet; Gilles Vandewalle Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2016-02-08 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Matthew F Glasser; Stephen M Smith; Daniel S Marcus; Jesper L R Andersson; Edward J Auerbach; Timothy E J Behrens; Timothy S Coalson; Michael P Harms; Mark Jenkinson; Steen Moeller; Emma C Robinson; Stamatios N Sotiropoulos; Junqian Xu; Essa Yacoub; Kamil Ugurbil; David C Van Essen Journal: Nat Neurosci Date: 2016-08-26 Impact factor: 24.884
Authors: Oscar Esteban; Daniel Birman; Marie Schaer; Oluwasanmi O Koyejo; Russell A Poldrack; Krzysztof J Gorgolewski Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-09-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kyriakos Flouris; Oscar Jimenez-Del-Toro; Christoph Aberle; Michael Bach; Roger Schaer; Markus M Obmann; Bram Stieltjes; Henning Müller; Adrien Depeursinge; Ender Konukoglu Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-03-18 Impact factor: 4.379