Exploring the limits of ComBat method for multi-site diffusion MRI harmonization

The findings from diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI) studies often show inconsistent and sometimes contradictory results due to small sample sizes as well as differences in acquisition parameters and pre-/post-processing methods. To address these challenges, collaborative multi-site initiatives have provided an opportunity to collect larger and more diverse groups of subjects, including those with neuropsychiatric disorders, leading to increased power and findings that may be more representative at the group and individual level. With the availability of these datasets openly, the ability of joint analysis of multi-site dMRI data has become more important than ever. However, intrinsic- or acquisition-related variability in scanner models, acquisition protocols, and reconstruction settings hinder pooling multi-site dMRI directly. One powerful and fast statistical harmonization method called ComBat (https://github.com/Jfortin1/ComBatHarmonization) was developed to mitigate the “batch effect” in gene expression microarray data and was adapted for multi-site dMRI harmonization to reduce scanner/site effect. Our goal is to evaluate this commonly used harmonization approach using a large diffusion MRI dataset involving 542 individuals from 5 sites. We investigated two important aspects of using ComBat for harmonization of fractional anisotropy (FA) across sites: First, we assessed how well ComBat preserves the inter-subject biological variability (measured by the effect sizes of between-group FA differences) after harmonization. Second, we evaluated the effect of minor differences in pre-processing on ComBat’s performance. While the majority of effect sizes are mostly preserved in some sites after harmonization, they are not well-preserved at other sites where non-linear scanner contributions exist. Further, even minor differences in pre-processing can yield unwanted effects during ComBat harmonization. Thus, our findings suggest paying careful attention to the data being harmonized as well as using the same processing pipeline while using ComBat for data harmonization.

[1]  Christos Davatzikos,et al.  Harmonization of large MRI datasets for the analysis of brain imaging patterns throughout the lifespan , 2019, NeuroImage.

[2]  Yogesh Rathi,et al.  White matter abnormalities across the lifespan of schizophrenia: a harmonized multi-site diffusion MRI study , 2019, Molecular Psychiatry.

[3]  Emily L. Dennis,et al.  ENIGMA and global neuroscience: A decade of large-scale studies of the brain in health and disease across more than 40 countries , 2019, Biological Psychiatry.

[4]  Jacob Cohen Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[5]  Paul M. Thompson,et al.  ENIGMA-Viewer: Interactive Visualization Strategies for Conveying Effect Sizes in Meta-Analysis , 2016, BCB.

[6]  Colm McDonald,et al.  Neuroharmony: A new tool for harmonizing volumetric MRI data from unseen scanners , 2020, NeuroImage.

[7]  Peter Savadjiev,et al.  Multi-site harmonization of diffusion MRI data in a registration framework , 2017, Brain Imaging and Behavior.

[8]  Tuo-Hung Hou,et al.  SLIM: Simultaneous Logic-in-Memory Computing Exploiting Bilayer Analog OxRAM Devices , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[9]  Yogesh Rathi,et al.  Voxel-based morphometry (VBM) studies in schizophrenia—can white matter changes be reliably detected with VBM? , 2011, Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging.

[10]  Anna Varentsova,et al.  Development of a high angular resolution diffusion imaging human brain template , 2014, NeuroImage.

[11]  Paul M. Thompson,et al.  ENIGMA-Viewer: interactive visualization strategies for conveying effect sizes in meta-analysis , 2016, BMC Bioinformatics.

[12]  Jelle Veraart,et al.  Cross-scanner and cross-protocol diffusion MRI data harmonisation: A benchmark database and evaluation of algorithms , 2019, NeuroImage.

[13]  Kilian M. Pohl,et al.  Harmonizing DTI measurements across scanners to examine the development of white matter microstructure in 803 adolescents of the NCANDA study , 2016, NeuroImage.

[14]  D. Smeets,et al.  Potential of a statistical approach for the standardization of multicenter diffusion tensor data: A phantom study , 2019, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[15]  Michele Rostan,et al.  Concepts and Methods , 2014 .

[16]  Thomas E. Nichols,et al.  The ENIGMA Consortium: large-scale collaborative analyses of neuroimaging and genetic data , 2014, Brain Imaging and Behavior.

[17]  Thomas E. Nichols,et al.  Scanning the horizon: towards transparent and reproducible neuroimaging research , 2016, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[18]  Timothy Edward John Behrens,et al.  Characterization and propagation of uncertainty in diffusion‐weighted MR imaging , 2003, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[19]  Dan J Stein,et al.  Widespread white matter microstructural differences in schizophrenia across 4322 individuals: results from the ENIGMA Schizophrenia DTI Working Group , 2017, Molecular Psychiatry.

[20]  Arthur W. Toga,et al.  Multi-site study of additive genetic effects on fractional anisotropy of cerebral white matter: Comparing meta and megaanalytical approaches for data pooling , 2014, NeuroImage.

[21]  Ragini Verma,et al.  Harmonization of multi-site diffusion tensor imaging data , 2017, NeuroImage.

[22]  Carl-Fredrik Westin,et al.  SlicerDMRI: Open Source Diffusion MRI Software for Brain Cancer Research. , 2017, Cancer research.

[23]  Stamatios N. Sotiropoulos,et al.  An integrated approach to correction for off-resonance effects and subject movement in diffusion MR imaging , 2016, NeuroImage.

[24]  Anders M. Dale,et al.  The Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study: Imaging acquisition across 21 sites , 2018, Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience.

[25]  Peter Savadjiev,et al.  Inter-site and inter-scanner diffusion MRI data harmonization , 2016, NeuroImage.

[26]  R. Kikinis,et al.  A review of magnetic resonance imaging and diffusion tensor imaging findings in mild traumatic brain injury , 2012, Brain Imaging and Behavior.

[27]  Tyrone D. Cannon,et al.  North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study (NAPLS 3): Methods and baseline description , 2020, Schizophrenia Research.

[28]  Yogesh Rathi,et al.  Harmonizing Diffusion MRI Data Across Magnetic Field Strengths , 2018, MICCAI.

[29]  T. Crow,et al.  Investigating Sexual Dimorphism of Human White Matter in a Harmonized, Multisite Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study. , 2020, Cerebral cortex.

[30]  Jan Sijbers,et al.  Harmonization of Brain Diffusion MRI: Concepts and Methods , 2020, Frontiers in Neuroscience.

[31]  Arno Klein,et al.  A reproducible evaluation of ANTs similarity metric performance in brain image registration , 2011, NeuroImage.

[32]  Chantal M. W. Tax,et al.  Cross-scanner and cross-protocol multi-shell diffusion MRI data harmonization: Algorithms and results , 2020, NeuroImage.

[33]  Yogesh Rathi,et al.  Retrospective harmonization of multi-site diffusion MRI data acquired with different acquisition parameters , 2019, NeuroImage.

[34]  M. Hatt,et al.  Performance comparison of modified ComBat for harmonization of radiomic features for multicenter studies , 2020, Scientific Reports.

[35]  Jan Sijbers,et al.  Weighted linear least squares estimation of diffusion MRI parameters: Strengths, limitations, and pitfalls , 2013, NeuroImage.

[36]  R. Kikinis,et al.  A review of diffusion tensor imaging studies in schizophrenia. , 2007, Journal of psychiatric research.

[37]  Cheng Li,et al.  Adjusting batch effects in microarray expression data using empirical Bayes methods. , 2007, Biostatistics.