Mapping reliability in multicenter MRI: Voxel‐based morphometry and cortical thickness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multicenter structural MRI studies can have greater statistical power than single-center studies. However, across-center differences in contrast sensitivity, spatial uniformity, etc., may lead to tissue classification or image registration differences that could reduce or wholly offset the enhanced statistical power of multicenter data. Prior work has validated volumetric multicenter MRI, but robust methods for assessing reliability and power of multisite analyses with voxel-based morphometry (VBM) and cortical thickness measurement (CORT) are not yet available. We developed quantitative methods to investigate the reproducibility of VBM and CORT to detect group differences and estimate heritability when MRI scans from different scanners running different acquisition protocols in a multicenter setup are included. The method produces brain maps displaying information such as lowest detectable effect size (or heritability) and effective number of subjects in the multicenter study. We applied the method to a five-site multicenter calibration study using scanners from four different manufacturers, running different acquisition protocols. The reliability maps showed an overall good comparability between the sites, providing a reasonable gain in sensitivity in most parts of the brain. In large parts of the cerebrum and cortex scan pooling improved heritability estimates, with "effective-N" values upto the theoretical maximum. For some areas, "optimal-pool" maps indicated that leaving out a site would give better results. The reliability maps also reveal which brain regions are in any case difficult to measure reliably (e.g., around the thalamus). These tools will facilitate the design and analysis of multisite VBM and CORT studies for detecting group differences and estimating heritability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.037 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".