Literature DB >> 33447378

A new virtue of phantom MRI data: explaining variance in human participant data.

Christopher P Cheng1, Yaroslav O Halchenko2.   

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:
© 2020 Cheng CP and Halchenko YO.

Entities:  

Keywords:  MRI; MRI QA; Neuroimaging; reproducibility; seasonal variation

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33447378      PMCID: PMC7783534          DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.24544.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  F1000Res        ISSN: 2046-1402


  12 in total

1.  Impact of time-of-day on brain morphometric measures derived from T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging.

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

2.  The first step for neuroimaging data analysis: DICOM to NIfTI conversion.

Authors:  Xiangrui Li; Paul S Morgan; John Ashburner; Jolinda Smith; Christopher Rorden
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2016-03-02       Impact factor: 2.390

3.  Predicting individual face-selective topography using naturalistic stimuli.

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

4.  Reliability assessment of tissue classification algorithms for multi-center and multi-scanner data.

Authors:  Mahsa Dadar; Simon Duchesne
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2020-05-13       Impact factor: 6.556

5.  Seasonality in human cognitive brain responses.

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

Review 6.  The Human Connectome Project's neuroimaging approach.

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

Review 7.  Variations in the size of the human brain. Influence of age, sex, body length, body mass index, alcoholism, Alzheimer changes, and cerebral atherosclerosis.

Authors:  K Skullerud
Journal:  Acta Neurol Scand Suppl       Date:  1985

8.  Accuracy and reliability of automated gray matter segmentation pathways on real and simulated structural magnetic resonance images of the human brain.

Authors:  Lucas D Eggert; Jens Sommer; Andreas Jansen; Tilo Kircher; Carsten Konrad
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-09-18       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  MRIQC: Advancing the automatic prediction of image quality in MRI from unseen sites.

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

10.  Custom-molded headcases have limited efficacy in reducing head motion during naturalistic fMRI experiments.

Authors:  E Jolly; S Sadhukha; L J Chang
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2020-08-01       Impact factor: 6.556

View more
  1 in total

1.  Assessing radiomics feature stability with simulated CT acquisitions.

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

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.