Statistical adjustments for brain size in volumetric neuroimaging studies: Some practical implications in methods
Introduction
Volumetric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies have been key in identifying structural brain changes associated with many neurological and psychiatric disorders. Such structural changes can manifest in a variety of ways. The challenge of detecting and interpreting these changes has fallen upon neuroanatomists, clinical researchers, and statisticians. The inherently quantitative nature of morphometric MRI data mandates the use of statistical techniques to assess volumetric relationships, often with the goal of detecting subtle differences in regional volumes between or among diagnostic groups.
The questions of primary interest to clinical researchers, however, are not typically as straightforward as simply determining whether a particular brain region is larger or smaller in one group relative to another. In one example from a recent study of microcephaly, despite a decrease in whole-brain volumes only nuclear gray matter was found to differ significantly from controls (Cheong et al., 2008). In studies of autism, macrocephaly is commonly reported in the literature (Lainhart et al., 1997, Fombonne et al., 1999, Fidler et al., 2000, Bolton et al., 2001, McCaffery and Deutsch, 2005, Rice et al., 2005). Most studies in the field have demonstrated that autistic children tend to have larger heads, and MRI studies have found larger brains among children with autism compared with controls. This finding raises an important question: Are brain volumes increased globally in autism (are all structures proportionally bigger?) or locally (is brain overgrowth in autism driven by regionally specific expansion of some brain structures but not others?).
There is not a single, straightforward approach to addressing these questions. For example, one could make a statement about the overall average white matter volume in autistic children relative to controls. Nevertheless, someone with a larger brain is likely to exhibit increased gray and white matter volumes, although not necessarily according to the same proportions (Zhang and Sejnowski, 2000, Changizi, 2001, Bush and Allman, 2003). We could ask whether the amount of white matter is larger in autistic children after adjusting for total brain volume (TBV) or some other measure of head size (Herbert et al., 2003). The answers to these questions could be quite different depending on the methodology employed.
Considerations are further complicated when one asks what is meant by the phrase “adjusting for” in the previous paragraph. Those familiar with statistical literature are accustomed to seeing this phrase and generally have a preconceived notion of what it means. In the volumetric brain imaging literature, however, there are several ways in which one can assess the relative sizes of volumes of particular regions of interest (ROIs) after “adjusting for” differences in overall head size. It is important to note that although we use the term “head size” for the adjustment factor, different metrics can be used for head size. Total brain volume and intracranial volume (ICV) are two commonly measures, but their correlation generally decreases with increased age (Bartholomeusz et al., 2002). Using TBV may be more appropriate when interest is in how an ROI changes with respect to the brain as a whole. However, if interest is in how ROI volume changes with respect to maximal adult brain size, using ICV may be more appropriate. Other body parameters may also be used as adjustment factors (cf. Peters et al., 1998). It is important to note, however, that the issues discussed and the modeling methods recommended in this paper do not change with the choice of the adjustment variable.
The goal of the present article is to bring to light the origins of the three common adjustment methods, the statistical assumptions that underlie them, and to give examples of common pitfalls that researchers must be wary of when analyzing volumetric MRI brain data. Further, we assess the degree to which prevailing methods are concordant in an example data set, and the degree to which anthropometric dependent measures are interchangeable. We conclude with a generalized strategy which researchers may use when modeling volumetric MRI data.
Section snippets
Common methods for adjusting for head size
Here we discuss three common methods for adjusting for head size. While we use the general term “head size,” we note that it can be used to refer to various body size measurements — including total brain volume. A more thorough discussion of head/body size parameters and their use in making statistical adjustments is reviewed in O'Brien et al. (2006).
We can generically refer to the three common methods used to adjust for head size as the 1) proportion, 2) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), and 3)
Comparison of ANCOVA and proportion methods
The proportion and ANCOVA methods detect different types of group effects in the data. Which method one should use depends on which of the underlying models discussed above is the true one (see Supplementary Fig. 3). A good first step to determine which of these scenarios is likely to be tenable is to plot the data using a different plotting symbol for each group. If the groups are generally parallel with a vertical offset (i.e., when the ANCOVA method would be appropriate), use of the
Subjects
Structural MRI data were collected from 83 subjects (35 males and 48 females) ranging in age from 6.2 to 16.9 years. The mean age was 11.4 ± 2.78 years and did not differ significantly between the two diagnostic groups. The sample was ethnically homogeneous with 77 of the 83 subjects being Caucasian. The subjects were taken from a study of psychosis and bipolar disorder, but for the purposes of this exercise, subjects were either considered to be “patient” or “normal controls” with the patient
Assessment of concordance among methods
The group effect p-values associated with each of the methods we assessed are tabulated for the segmentation structures in Table 2 and for the parcellation units in Table 3. P-values are reported in place of t-statistics or test statistics; because the degrees of freedom differ depending on which method is used (due to inherent differences among the tests), the test statistics are not directly comparable between methods. However, the p-values are, in a sense, standardized versions of these test
Discussion
The methods illustrated in this paper are widely applicable to a variety of volumetric imaging situations. Although we used a pediatric sample (in which TBV and ICV would be expected to be highly correlated) where the relationship between head size and ROI volume is linear, the strategy implemented is generalizable to work with nonlinear associations with head size as well. This includes situations in which there may be a differential relationship between ROI volume and head size depending on
Acknowledgements
This work was supported, in part, by a grant from the Division of Natural Sciences at Colby College. We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers and the Editor for their helpful and constructive suggestions.
References (44)
- et al.
Problems with ratio and proportion measures of imaged cerebral structures
Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging
(1991) - et al.
Association between idiopathic infantile macrocephaly and autism spectrum disorders
Lancet
(2001) - et al.
A unified approach for morphometric and functional data analysis in young, old, and demented adults using automated atlas-based head size normalization: reliability and validation against manual measurement of total intracranial volume
Neuroimage
(2004) - et al.
Hippocampal region-specific contributions to memory performance in normal elderly
Brain and Cognition
(2010) - et al.
Hypothalamic abnormalities in schizophrenia: sex effects and genetic vulnerability
Biological Psychiatry
(2007) - et al.
Aging, gender, and the elderly adult brain: an examination of analytical strategies
Neurobiology of Aging
(2008) - et al.
Macrocephaly in children and adults with autism
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
(1997) - et al.
Biological Psychiatry
(2008) - et al.
Correction for head size in brain-imaging measurements
Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging
(1993) - et al.
Macrocephaly and the control of brain growth in autistic disorders
Progress in Neurobiology
(2005)
Unresolved problems in comparing brain sizes in Homo Sapiens
Brain and Cognition
Thalamic and amygdala–hippocampal volume reductions in first-degree relatives of patients with schizophrenia: an MRI-based morphometric analysis
Biological Psychiatry
Sex differences in corpus callosum size: relationship to age and intracranial size.
Neurobiology of Aging
Differentiation of first-episode schizophrenia patients from healthy controls using ROI-based multiple structural brain variables
Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry
Investigating association of brain volumes with intracranial capacity in schizophrenia
Neuroimage
Relationship between hippocampal volume and memory ability in healthy individuals across the lifespan: review and meta-analysis
Neuropsychologia
Three-dimensional mapping of the lateral ventricles in autism
Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging
Relationship between head circumference and brain volume in healthy normal toddlers, children, and adults
Neuropediatrics
The scaling of white matter to gray matter in cerebellum and neocortex
Brain, Behavior and Evolution
MRI-based topographic parcellation of human neocortex: an anatomically specified method with estimate reliability
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Principles underlying mammalian neocortical scaling
Biological Cybernetics
Head growth in preterm infants: correlation with magnetic resonance imaging and neurodevelopmental outcome
Pediatrics
Cited by (131)
Hippocampal subfield volumes predict treatment response to oral ketamine in people with suicidality
2024, Journal of Psychiatric ResearchNeutrophil to lymphocyte ratio and antidepressant treatment response in patients with major depressive disorder: Effect of sex and hippocampal volume
2023, European NeuropsychopharmacologyBrain structure and function in the fourth decade of life after extremely low birth weight: An MRI and EEG study
2023, Clinical NeurophysiologyThe role of brain structure in the association between pubertal timing and depression risk in an early adolescent sample (the ABCD Study®): A registered report
2023, Developmental Cognitive NeurosciencePerinatal maternal mental health and amygdala morphology in young adulthood
2023, Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry