Pavel Filip1,2, Petr Bednarik1,3, Lynn E Eberly1,4, Amir Moheet5, Alena Svatkova6,7, Heidi Grohn1,8, Anjali F Kumar5, Elizabeth R Seaquist5, Silvia Mangia9. 1. Center for Magnetic Resonance Research (CMRR), University of Minnesota, 2021 Sixth St. SE, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA. 2. Department of Neurology, Charles University, First Faculty of Medicine and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic. 3. High Field MR Centre, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 4. Division of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minnesota, MN, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 6. Department of Medicine III, Clinical Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 7. Department of Imaging Methods, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czechia. 8. Diagnostic Imaging Center, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland. 9. Center for Magnetic Resonance Research (CMRR), University of Minnesota, 2021 Sixth St. SE, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA. mangia@umn.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Neuroimaging pipelines have long been known to generate mildly differing results depending on various factors, including software version. While considered generally acceptable and within the margin of reasonable error, little is known about their effect in common research scenarios such as inter-group comparisons between healthy controls and various pathological conditions. The aim of the presented study was to explore the differences in the inferences and statistical significances in a model situation comparing volumetric parameters between healthy controls and type 1 diabetes patients using various FreeSurfer versions. METHODS: T1- and T2-weighted structural scans of healthy controls and type 1 diabetes patients were processed with FreeSurfer 5.3, FreeSurfer 5.3 HCP, FreeSurfer 6.0 and FreeSurfer 7.1, followed by inter-group statistical comparison using outputs of individual FreeSurfer versions. RESULTS: Worryingly, FreeSurfer 5.3 detected both cortical and subcortical volume differences out of the preselected regions of interest, but newer versions such as FreeSurfer 5.3 HCP and FreeSurfer 6.0 reported only subcortical differences of lower magnitude and FreeSurfer 7.1 failed to find any statistically significant inter-group differences. CONCLUSION: Since group averages of individual FreeSurfer versions closely matched, in keeping with previous literature, the main origin of this disparity seemed to lie in substantially higher within-group variability in the model pathological condition. Ergo, until validation in common research scenarios as case-control comparison studies is included into the development process of new software suites, confirmatory analyses utilising a similar software based on analogous, but not fully equivalent principles, might be considered as supplement to careful quality control.
PURPOSE: Neuroimaging pipelines have long been known to generate mildly differing results depending on various factors, including software version. While considered generally acceptable and within the margin of reasonable error, little is known about their effect in common research scenarios such as inter-group comparisons between healthy controls and various pathological conditions. The aim of the presented study was to explore the differences in the inferences and statistical significances in a model situation comparing volumetric parameters between healthy controls and type 1 diabetes patients using various FreeSurfer versions. METHODS: T1- and T2-weighted structural scans of healthy controls and type 1 diabetes patients were processed with FreeSurfer 5.3, FreeSurfer 5.3 HCP, FreeSurfer 6.0 and FreeSurfer 7.1, followed by inter-group statistical comparison using outputs of individual FreeSurfer versions. RESULTS: Worryingly, FreeSurfer 5.3 detected both cortical and subcortical volume differences out of the preselected regions of interest, but newer versions such as FreeSurfer 5.3 HCP and FreeSurfer 6.0 reported only subcortical differences of lower magnitude and FreeSurfer 7.1 failed to find any statistically significant inter-group differences. CONCLUSION: Since group averages of individual FreeSurfer versions closely matched, in keeping with previous literature, the main origin of this disparity seemed to lie in substantially higher within-group variability in the model pathological condition. Ergo, until validation in common research scenarios as case-control comparison studies is included into the development process of new software suites, confirmatory analyses utilising a similar software based on analogous, but not fully equivalent principles, might be considered as supplement to careful quality control.
Authors: Calum D Moulton; Sergi G Costafreda; Paul Horton; Khalida Ismail; Cynthia H Y Fu Journal: Brain Imaging Behav Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 3.978
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: Randy L Buckner; Denise Head; Jamie Parker; Anthony F Fotenos; Daniel Marcus; John C Morris; Abraham Z Snyder Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Ed H B M Gronenschild; Petra Habets; Heidi I L Jacobs; Ron Mengelers; Nico Rozendaal; Jim van Os; Machteld Marcelis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Tristan Glatard; Lindsay B Lewis; Rafael Ferreira da Silva; Reza Adalat; Natacha Beck; Claude Lepage; Pierre Rioux; Marc-Etienne Rousseau; Tarek Sherif; Ewa Deelman; Najmeh Khalili-Mahani; Alan C Evans Journal: Front Neuroinform Date: 2015-04-24 Impact factor: 4.081
Authors: Pavlína Hlavatá; Pavla Linhartová; Rastislav Šumec; Pavel Filip; Miroslav Světlák; Marek Baláž; Tomáš Kašpárek; Martin Bareš Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2020-01-10 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Alexander Hammers; Rolf Heckemann; Matthias J Koepp; John S Duncan; Jo V Hajnal; Daniel Rueckert; Paul Aljabar Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2007-03-24 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Matthew F Glasser; Stamatios N Sotiropoulos; J Anthony Wilson; Timothy S Coalson; Bruce Fischl; Jesper L Andersson; Junqian Xu; Saad Jbabdi; Matthew Webster; Jonathan R Polimeni; David C Van Essen; Mark Jenkinson Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2013-05-11 Impact factor: 6.556