Kenneth Wengler1, Clifford Cassidy2, Marieke van der Pluijm3,4, Jodi J Weinstein1,5, Anissa Abi-Dargham5, Elsmarieke van de Giessen3, Guillermo Horga1. 1. Department of Psychiatry, New York State Psychiatric Institute, Columbia University, New York, USA. 2. University of Ottawa Institute of Mental Health Research, affiliated with The Royal, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 3. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Psychiatry, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neuromelanin-sensitive magnetic resonance imaging (NM-MRI) is a validated measure of neuromelanin concentration in the substantia nigra-ventral tegmental area (SN-VTA) complex and is a proxy measure of dopaminergic function with potential as a noninvasive biomarker. The development of generalizable biomarkers requires large-scale samples necessitating harmonization approaches to combine data collected across sites. PURPOSE: To develop a method to harmonize NM-MRI across scanners and sites. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: A total of 128 healthy subjects (18-73 years old; 45% female) from three sites and five MRI scanners. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3.0 T; NM-MRI two-dimensional gradient-recalled echo with magnetization-transfer pulse and three-dimensional T1-weighted images. ASSESSMENT: NM-MRI contrast (contrast-to-noise ratio [CNR]) maps were calculated and CNR values within the SN-VTA (defined previously by manual tracing on a standardized NM-MRI template) were determined before harmonization (raw CNR) and after ComBat harmonization (harmonized CNR). Scanner differences were assessed by calculating the classification accuracy of a support vector machine (SVM). To assess the effect of harmonization on biological variability, support vector regression (SVR) was used to predict age and the difference in goodness-of-fit (Δr) was calculated as the correlation (between actual and predicted ages) for the harmonized CNR minus the correlation for the raw CNR. STATISTICAL TESTS: Permutation tests were used to determine if SVM classification accuracy was above chance level and if SVR Δr was significant. A P-value <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: In the raw CNR, SVM MRI scanner classification was above chance level (accuracy = 86.5%). In the harmonized CNR, the accuracy of the SVM was at chance level (accuracy = 29.5%; P = 0.8542). There was no significant difference in age prediction using the raw or harmonized CNR (Δr = -0.06; P = 0.7304). DATA CONCLUSION: ComBat harmonization removes differences in SN-VTA CNR across scanners while preserving biologically meaningful variability associated with age. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: 1.
BACKGROUND: Neuromelanin-sensitive magnetic resonance imaging (NM-MRI) is a validated measure of neuromelanin concentration in the substantia nigra-ventral tegmental area (SN-VTA) complex and is a proxy measure of dopaminergic function with potential as a noninvasive biomarker. The development of generalizable biomarkers requires large-scale samples necessitating harmonization approaches to combine data collected across sites. PURPOSE: To develop a method to harmonize NM-MRI across scanners and sites. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: A total of 128 healthy subjects (18-73 years old; 45% female) from three sites and five MRI scanners. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3.0 T; NM-MRI two-dimensional gradient-recalled echo with magnetization-transfer pulse and three-dimensional T1-weighted images. ASSESSMENT: NM-MRI contrast (contrast-to-noise ratio [CNR]) maps were calculated and CNR values within the SN-VTA (defined previously by manual tracing on a standardized NM-MRI template) were determined before harmonization (raw CNR) and after ComBat harmonization (harmonized CNR). Scanner differences were assessed by calculating the classification accuracy of a support vector machine (SVM). To assess the effect of harmonization on biological variability, support vector regression (SVR) was used to predict age and the difference in goodness-of-fit (Δr) was calculated as the correlation (between actual and predicted ages) for the harmonized CNR minus the correlation for the raw CNR. STATISTICAL TESTS: Permutation tests were used to determine if SVM classification accuracy was above chance level and if SVR Δr was significant. A P-value <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: In the raw CNR, SVM MRI scanner classification was above chance level (accuracy = 86.5%). In the harmonized CNR, the accuracy of the SVM was at chance level (accuracy = 29.5%; P = 0.8542). There was no significant difference in age prediction using the raw or harmonized CNR (Δr = -0.06; P = 0.7304). DATA CONCLUSION: ComBat harmonization removes differences in SN-VTA CNR across scanners while preserving biologically meaningful variability associated with age. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: 1.
Authors: Andrew T Drysdale; Logan Grosenick; Jonathan Downar; Katharine Dunlop; Farrokh Mansouri; Yue Meng; Robert N Fetcho; Benjamin Zebley; Desmond J Oathes; Amit Etkin; Alan F Schatzberg; Keith Sudheimer; Jennifer Keller; Helen S Mayberg; Faith M Gunning; George S Alexopoulos; Michael D Fox; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; Henning U Voss; B J Casey; Marc J Dubin; Conor Liston Journal: Nat Med Date: 2016-12-05 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Fabio A Zucca; Renzo Vanna; Francesca A Cupaioli; Chiara Bellei; Antonella De Palma; Dario Di Silvestre; Pierluigi Mauri; Sara Grassi; Alessandro Prinetti; Luigi Casella; David Sulzer; Luigi Zecca Journal: NPJ Parkinsons Dis Date: 2018-06-05
Authors: Luigi Zecca; Chiara Bellei; Patrizia Costi; Alberto Albertini; Enrico Monzani; Luigi Casella; Mario Gallorini; Luigi Bergamaschi; Alberto Moscatelli; Nicholas J Turro; Melvin Eisner; Pier Raimondo Crippa; Shosuke Ito; Kazumasa Wakamatsu; William D Bush; Weslyn C Ward; John D Simon; Fabio A Zucca Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2008-11-06 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Meichen Yu; Kristin A Linn; Philip A Cook; Mary L Phillips; Melvin McInnis; Maurizio Fava; Madhukar H Trivedi; Myrna M Weissman; Russell T Shinohara; Yvette I Sheline Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Marieke van der Pluijm; Clifford Cassidy; Melissa Zandstra; Elon Wallert; Kora de Bruin; Jan Booij; Lieuwe de Haan; Guillermo Horga; Elsmarieke van de Giessen Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2020-10-09 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Raymond Pomponio; Guray Erus; Mohamad Habes; Jimit Doshi; Dhivya Srinivasan; Elizabeth Mamourian; Vishnu Bashyam; Ilya M Nasrallah; Theodore D Satterthwaite; Yong Fan; Lenore J Launer; Colin L Masters; Paul Maruff; Chuanjun Zhuo; Henry Völzke; Sterling C Johnson; Jurgen Fripp; Nikolaos Koutsouleris; Daniel H Wolf; Raquel Gur; Ruben Gur; John Morris; Marilyn S Albert; Hans J Grabe; Susan M Resnick; R Nick Bryan; David A Wolk; Russell T Shinohara; Haochang Shou; Christos Davatzikos Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2019-12-09 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Yang Nan; Javier Del Ser; Simon Walsh; Carola Schönlieb; Michael Roberts; Ian Selby; Kit Howard; John Owen; Jon Neville; Julien Guiot; Benoit Ernst; Ana Pastor; Angel Alberich-Bayarri; Marion I Menzel; Sean Walsh; Wim Vos; Nina Flerin; Jean-Paul Charbonnier; Eva van Rikxoort; Avishek Chatterjee; Henry Woodruff; Philippe Lambin; Leonor Cerdá-Alberich; Luis Martí-Bonmatí; Francisco Herrera; Guang Yang Journal: Inf Fusion Date: 2022-06 Impact factor: 17.564