Quantitative assessment of field strength, total intracranial volume, sex, and age effects on the goodness of harmonization for volumetric analysis on the ADNI database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When analyzing large multicenter databases, the effects of multiple confounding covariates increase the variability in the data and may reduce the ability to detect changes due to the actual effect of interest, for example, changes due to disease. Efficient ways to evaluate the effect of covariates toward the data harmonization are therefore important. In this article, we showcase techniques to assess the "goodness of harmonization" of covariates. We analyze 7,656 MR images in the multisite, multiscanner Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database. We present a comparison of three methods for estimating total intracranial volume to assess their robustness and correct the brain structure volumes using the residual method and the proportional (normalization by division) method. We then evaluated the distribution of brain structure volumes over the entire ADNI database before and after accounting for multiple covariates such as total intracranial volume, scanner field strength, sex, and age using two techniques: (a) Zscapes, a panoramic visualization technique to analyze the entire database and (b) empirical cumulative distributions functions. The results from this study highlight the importance of assessing the goodness of data harmonization as a necessary preprocessing step when pooling large data set with multiple covariates, prior to further statistical data analysis.
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 | 0.086 | 0.215 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".