A concern for researchers planning multisite studies is that scanner and T1-weighted sequence-related biases on regional volumes could overshadow true effects, especially for studies with a heterogeneous set of scanners and sequences. Current approaches attempt to harmonize data by standardizing hardware, pulse sequences, and protocols, or by calibrating across sites using phantom-based corrections to ensure the same raw image intensities. We propose to avoid harmonization and phantom-based correction entirely. We hypothesized that the bias of estimated regional volumes is scaled between sites due to the contrast and gradient distortion differences between scanners and sequences. Given this assumption, we provide a new statistical framework and derive a power equation to define inclusion criteria for a set of sites based on the variability of their scaling factors. We estimated the scaling factors of 20 scanners with heterogeneous hardware and sequence parameters by scanning a single set of 12 subjects at sites across the United States and Europe. Regional volumes and their scaling factors were estimated for each site using Freesurfer's segmentation algorithm and ordinary least squares, respectively. The scaling factors were validated by comparing the theoretical and simulated power curves, performing a leave-one-out calibration of regional volumes, and evaluating the absolute agreement of all regional volumes between sites before and after calibration. Using our derived powerequation, we were able to define the conditions under which harmonization is not necessary to achieve 80% power. This approach can inform choice of processing pipelines and outcome metrics for multisite studies based on scaling factor variability across sites, enabling collaboration between clinical and research institutions.
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 22 April 2016.
All research outputs
#16,722,913
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from NeuroImage
#9,480
of 12,205 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,154
of 314,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age from NeuroImage
#177
of 238 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,205 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 314,723 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 238 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
