Intensity warping for multisite MRI harmonization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In multisite neuroimaging studies there is often unwanted technical variation across scanners and sites. These “scanner effects” can hinder detection of biological features of interest, produce inconsistent results, and lead to spurious associations. We assess scanner effects in two brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies where subjects were measured on multiple scanners within a short time frame, so that one could assume any differences between images were due to technical rather than biological effects. We propose mica ( m ultisite i mage harmonization by C DF a lignment), a tool to harmonize images taken on different scanners by identifying and removing within-subject scanner effects. Our goals in the present study were to (1) establish a method that removes scanner effects by leveraging multiple scans collected on the same subject, and, building on this, (2) develop a technique to quantify scanner effects in large multisite trials so these can be reduced as a preprocessing step. We found that unharmonized images were highly variable across site and scanner type, and our method effectively removed this variability by warping intensity distributions. We further studied the ability to predict intensity harmonization results for a scan taken on an existing subject at a new site using cross-validation.
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 | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".