Abstract
Background Consistent methods for evaluating the link between brain structure and cognition are essential for understanding determinants of neurologic outcomes. Studies examining associations between brain volumetric measures and cognition use various statistical approaches to account for variation in intracranial volume (ICV). It is unclear if commonly used approaches yield consistent results.
Methods Using a brain-wide association approach in the MRI substudy of UK Biobank (N=41,964; mean age=64.5 years), we used regression models to estimate the associations of 58 regional brain volumetric measures with eight cognitive outcomes, comparing no correction and five ICV correction approaches. Approaches evaluated included: no correction; dividing regional volumes by ICV, with and without further adjustment for ICV (proportional approach); including ICV as a covariate in the regression (adjustment approach); and regressing the regional volumes against ICV in different normative samples and using calculated residuals to determine associations (residual approach). We used Spearman-rank correlations and two consistency measures to quantify the extent to which associations were inconsistent across ICV correction approaches for each possible brain region and cognitive outcome pair across 2,784 regression models.
Findings The adjustment and residual approaches typically produced similar estimates, which were inconsistent with results from the crude and proportional approaches. Inconsistencies across approaches were largest when estimates from the adjustment and residual approaches were further from the null. That is, the approach used was least important when the association between brain volume and cognitive performance was close to null; in this case, all approaches tend to estimate a null association.
Interpretation Commonly used methods to correct for ICV yield inconsistent results and the proportional method diverges from other methods. Adjustment methods are the simplest to implement while producing biologically plausible associations.
Competing Interest Statement
BL was supported by Innovate for Health Data Science Fellowship from Johnson & Johnson and is currently employed by Seer, Inc.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by NIH/NIA.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Analyses were approved by the University of California, San Francisco Institutional Review Board under UK Biobank Resource project #74748.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
