Longitudinal ComBat: A method for harmonizing longitudinal multi-scanner imaging data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While aggregation of neuroimaging datasets from multiple sites and scanners can yield increased statistical power, it also presents challenges due to systematic scanner effects. This unwanted technical variability can introduce noise and bias into estimation of biological variability of interest. We propose a method for harmonizing longitudinal multi-scanner imaging data based on ComBat, a method originally developed for genomics and later adapted to cross-sectional neuroimaging data. Using longitudinal cortical thickness measurements from 663 participants in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) study, we demonstrate the presence of additive and multiplicative scanner effects in various brain regions. We compare estimates of the association between diagnosis and change in cortical thickness over time using three versions of the ADNI data: unharmonized data, data harmonized using cross-sectional ComBat, and data harmonized using longitudinal ComBat. In simulation studies, we show that longitudinal ComBat is more powerful for detecting longitudinal change than cross-sectional ComBat and controls the type I error rate better than unharmonized data with scanner included as a covariate. The proposed method would be useful for other types of longitudinal data requiring harmonization, such as genomic data, or neuroimaging studies of neurodevelopment, psychiatric disorders, or other neurological diseases.
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 | 0.024 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".