ComBat Harmonization: Empirical Bayes versus fully Bayes approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studying small effects or subtle neuroanatomical variation requires large-scale sample size data. As a result, combining neuroimaging data from multiple datasets is necessary. Variation in acquisition protocols, magnetic field strength, scanner build, and many other non-biologically related factors can introduce undesirable bias into studies. Hence, harmonization is required to remove the bias-inducing factors from the data. ComBat is one of the most common methods applied to features from structural images. ComBat models the data using a hierarchical Bayesian model and uses the empirical Bayes approach to infer the distribution of the unknown factors. The empirical Bayes harmonization method is computationally efficient and provides valid point estimates. However, it tends to underestimate uncertainty. This paper investigates a new approach, fully Bayesian ComBat, where Monte Carlo sampling is used for statistical inference. When comparing fully Bayesian and empirical Bayesian ComBat, we found Empirical Bayesian ComBat more effectively removed scanner strength information and was much more computationally efficient. Conversely, fully Bayesian ComBat better preserved biological disease and age-related information while performing more accurate harmonization on traveling subjects. The fully Bayesian approach generates a rich posterior distribution, which is useful for generating simulated imaging features for improving classifier performance in a limited data setting. We show the generative capacity of our model for augmenting and improving the detection of patients with Alzheimer's disease. Posterior distributions for harmonized imaging measures can also be used for brain-wide uncertainty comparison and more principled downstream statistical analysis.Code for our new fully Bayesian ComBat extension is available at https://github.com/batmanlab/BayesComBat.
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 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".