When the Single Matters more than the Group (II): Addressing the Problem of High False Positive Rates in Single Case Voxel Based Morphometry Using Non-parametric Statistics

In recent years, an increasing number of studies have used Voxel Based Morphometry (VBM) to compare a single patient with a psychiatric or neurological condition of interest against a group of healthy controls. However, the validity of this approach critically relies on the assumption that the single patient is drawn from a hypothetical population with a normal distribution and variance equal to that of the control group. In a previous investigation, we demonstrated that family-wise false positive error rate (i.e., the proportion of statistical comparisons yielding at least one false positive) in single case VBM are much higher than expected (Scarpazza et al., 2013). Here, we examine whether the use of non-parametric statistics, which does not rely on the assumptions of normal distribution and equal variance, would enable the investigation of single subjects with good control of false positive risk. We empirically estimated false positive rates (FPRs) in single case non-parametric VBM, by performing 400 statistical comparisons between a single disease-free individual and a group of 100 disease-free controls. The impact of smoothing (4, 8, and 12 mm) and type of pre-processing (Modulated, Unmodulated) was also examined, as these factors have been found to influence FPRs in previous investigations using parametric statistics. The 400 statistical comparisons were repeated using two independent, freely available data sets in order to maximize the generalizability of the results. We found that the family-wise error rate was 5% for increases and 3.6% for decreases in one data set; and 5.6% for increases and 6.3% for decreases in the other data set (5% nominal). Further, these results were not dependent on the level of smoothing and modulation. Therefore, the present study provides empirical evidence that single case VBM studies with non-parametric statistics are not susceptible to high false positive rates. The critical implication of this finding is that VBM can be used to characterize neuroanatomical alterations in individual subjects as long as non-parametric statistics are employed.

[1]  M. Seghier,et al.  An anatomical signature for literacy , 2009, Nature.

[2]  Harry O. Posten,et al.  Robustness of the Two-Sample T-Test , 1984 .

[3]  Alan C. Evans,et al.  A Three-Dimensional Statistical Analysis for CBF Activation Studies in Human Brain , 1992, Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism.

[4]  M. Degroot,et al.  Probability and Statistics , 2021, Examining an Operational Approach to Teaching Probability.

[5]  Michael A Yassa,et al.  A quantitative evaluation of cross-participant registration techniques for MRI studies of the medial temporal lobe , 2009, NeuroImage.

[6]  Roberto Viviani,et al.  Non-normality and transformations of random fields, with an application to voxel-based morphometry , 2007, NeuroImage.

[7]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  A Voxel-Based Morphometric Study of Ageing in 465 Normal Adult Human Brains , 2001, NeuroImage.

[8]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Why Voxel-Based Morphometry Should Be Used , 2001, NeuroImage.

[9]  Giuseppe Sartori,et al.  When the single matters more than the group: Very high false positive rates in single case Voxel Based Morphometry , 2013, NeuroImage.

[10]  John P A Ioannidis,et al.  Excess significance bias in the literature on brain volume abnormalities. , 2011, Archives of general psychiatry.

[11]  Clifford R Jack,et al.  Comparisons Between Alzheimer Disease, Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration, and Normal Aging With Brain Mapping , 2005, Topics in magnetic resonance imaging : TMRI.

[12]  B. J. Casey,et al.  Structural and functional brain development and its relation to cognitive development , 2000, Biological Psychology.

[13]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Computing average shaped tissue probability templates , 2009, NeuroImage.

[14]  Thomas E. Nichols,et al.  Nonparametric permutation tests for functional neuroimaging: A primer with examples , 2002, Human brain mapping.

[15]  Rui Huang,et al.  A meta-analysis of voxel-based morphometry studies of white matter volume alterations in Alzheimer's disease , 2012, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[16]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Voxel-based morphometry of the human brain: Methods and applications , 2005 .

[17]  Geraint Rees,et al.  Relating Introspective Accuracy to Individual Differences in Brain Structure , 2010, Science.

[18]  A. Weindl,et al.  Voxel-Based Morphometry in Individual Patients: A Pilot Study in Early Huntington Disease , 2009, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[19]  Stephen M. Smith,et al.  Permutation inference for the general linear model , 2014, NeuroImage.

[20]  S. Lui,et al.  A Meta-analysis of Voxel-based Brain Morphometry Studies in Obstructive Sleep Apnea , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[21]  K. Worsley,et al.  Detecting Sparse Signals in Random Fields, With an Application to Brain Mapping , 2007 .

[22]  A. Mechelli,et al.  False positive rates in Voxel-based Morphometry studies of the human brain: Should we be worried? , 2015, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[23]  Harry O. Posten,et al.  Robustness of the two-sample t-test umdeh violations of the homogeneity of farjance assumptioi , 1982 .

[24]  T. Crow,et al.  Regional deficits in brain volume in schizophrenia: a meta-analysis of voxel-based morphometry studies. , 2005, The American journal of psychiatry.

[25]  Christian Windischberger,et al.  Toward discovery science of human brain function , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[26]  Jan Kassubek,et al.  The bootstrap and cross‐validation in neuroimaging applications: Estimation of the distribution of extrema of random fields for single volume tests, with an application to ADC maps , 2007, Human brain mapping.

[27]  Matthew J. Kempton,et al.  Neuroanatomy of vulnerability to psychosis: A voxel-based meta-analysis , 2011, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[28]  G. V. Van Hoesen,et al.  The evolution of the frontal lobes: a volumetric analysis based on three-dimensional reconstructions of magnetic resonance scans of human and ape brains. , 1997, Journal of human evolution.

[29]  Andrea Mechelli,et al.  Why are psychiatric imaging methods clinically unreliable? Conclusions and practical guidelines for authors, editors and reviewers , 2012, Behavioral and Brain Functions.

[30]  G. Busatto,et al.  Neurostructural predictors of Alzheimer's disease: A meta-analysis of VBM studies , 2011, Neurobiology of Aging.

[31]  M. Phillips,et al.  Grey matter differences in bipolar disorder: a meta‐analysis of voxel‐based morphometry studies , 2012, Bipolar disorders.

[32]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Voxel-Based Morphometry—The Methods , 2000, NeuroImage.

[33]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Distributional Assumptions in Voxel-Based Morphometry , 2002, NeuroImage.

[34]  John Ashburner,et al.  A fast diffeomorphic image registration algorithm , 2007, NeuroImage.

[35]  M. Broome,et al.  Why Is Psychiatric Imaging Clinically Unreliable? Epistemological Perspectives in Clinical Neuroscience , 2009, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics.