↓ Skip to main content

Correction of inter-scanner and within-subject variance in structural MRI based automated diagnosing

Overview of attention for article published in NeuroImage, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Correction of inter-scanner and within-subject variance in structural MRI based automated diagnosing
Published in
NeuroImage, April 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.04.057
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Automated analysis of structural magnetic resonance images is a promising way to improve early detection of neurodegenerative brain diseases. Clinical applications of such methods involve multiple scanners with potentially different hardware and/or acquisition sequences and demographically heterogeneous groups. To improve classification performance, we propose to correct effects of subject-specific covariates (such as age, total intracranial volume, and sex) as well as effects of scanner by using a non-linear Gaussian process model. To test the efficacy of the correction, we performed classification of carriers of the genetic mutation leading to Huntington's disease (HD) versus healthy controls. Half of the HD carriers were free of typical HD symptoms and had an estimated 5 to 20years before onset of clinical symptoms, thus providing a model for preclinical diagnosis of a neurodegenerative disease. Structural magnetic resonance brain images were acquired at four sites with pairs of sites which had the identical scanner type, equipment, and acquisition parameters. For automatic classification, we used spatially normalized probabilistic maps of gray matter, then removed confounding effects by Gaussian process regression, and then performed classification with a support vector machine. Voxel-based morphometry of gray matter maps showed disease effects that were spatially wider spread than effects of scanner, but no significant interactions between scanner and disease were found. A model trained with data from a single scanner generalized well to data from a different scanner. When confounding diagnostics groups and scanner during training, e.g. by using controls from one scanner and gene carriers from another, classification accuracy dropped significantly in many cases. By regressing out confounds with Gaussian process regression, the performance levels were comparable to those obtained in scenarios without confound. We conclude that models trained on data acquired with a single scanner generalized well to data acquired with a different same-generation scanner even when the vendor differed. When confounding grouping and scanner during training is unavoidable to gather training data, regressing out inter-scanner and between-subject variability can reduce the loss in accuracy due to the confound.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 3%
Netherlands 2 2%
United States 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 95 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 19%
Student > Master 14 14%
Student > Bachelor 13 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 19 19%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 13%
Computer Science 11 11%
Psychology 11 11%
Engineering 9 9%
Neuroscience 7 7%
Other 21 21%
Unknown 30 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 May 2014.
All research outputs
#17,958,004
of 27,965,929 outputs
Outputs from NeuroImage
#9,238
of 12,539 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,172
of 246,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age from NeuroImage
#107
of 183 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,965,929 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,539 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 246,141 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 183 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.