RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 The impact of quality control on cortical morphometry comparisons in autism
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.12.05.22283091
DO 10.1101/2022.12.05.22283091
A1 Bedford, Saashi A.
A1 Ortiz-Rosa, Alfredo
A1 Schabdach, Jenna M.
A1 Costantino, Manuela
A1 Tullo, Stephanie
A1 Piercy, Tom
A1 Lifespan Brain Chart Consortium
A1 Lai, Meng-Chuan
A1 Lombardo, Michael V.
A1 Di Martino, Adriana
A1 Devenyi, Gabriel A.
A1 Chakravarty, M. Mallar
A1 Alexander-Bloch, Aaron F.
A1 Seidlitz, Jakob
A1 Baron-Cohen, Simon
A1 Bethlehem, Richard A.I.
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/12/06/2022.12.05.22283091.abstract
AB Structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) quality is known to impact and bias neuroanatomical estimates and downstream analysis, including case-control comparisons. However, despite this, limited work has systematically evaluated the impact of image and image-processing quality on these measures, or compared different quality control (QC) methods and metrics. The growing size of typical neuroimaging datasets presents an additional challenge to QC, which is typically extremely time and labour intensive. Two of the most important aspects of MRI quality are motion, which is known to have a substantial impact on cortical measures in particular, and the accuracy of processed outputs, which have been shown to impact neurodevelopmental trajectories. Here, we present a tool, FSQC, that enables quick and efficient yet thorough assessment of both of these aspects in outputs of the FreeSurfer processing pipeline. We validate our method against other existing QC metrics, including the automated FreeSurfer Euler number, and two other manual ratings of raw image quality. We show strikingly similar spatial patterns in the relationship between each QC measure and cortical thickness; relationships for cortical volume and surface area are largely consistent across metrics, though with some notable differences. We next demonstrate that thresholding by QC score attenuates but does eliminate the impact of quality on cortical estimates. Finally, we explore different ways of controlling for quality when examining differences between autistic individuals and neurotypical controls in the ABIDE dataset, demonstrating that inadequate control for quality can alter results of case-control comparisons.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementSB was supported by the Trinity College Coutts-Trotter Studentship. AAB, JS, and JMS were supported by NIMH K08MH120564. ADM was supported by NIMH R21MH107045, R01MH105506, R01MH115363. MMC is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Fondation de Recherches Sante Quebec and Healthy Brains for Healthy Lives. M-CL was supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Sex and Gender Science Chair (GSB 171373) and an Academic Scholars Award from the Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto. MVL was supported by funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 755816. SBC received funding from the Wellcome Trust 214322\Z\18\Z. For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. The results leading to this publication have received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking under grant agreement No 777394 for the project AIMS-2-TRIALS. This Joint Undertaking receives support from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and EFPIA and AUTISM SPEAKS, Autistica, SFARI. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results. SBC also received funding from the Autism Centre of Excellence, SFARI, the Templeton World Charitable Fund and the MRC. All research at the Department of Psychiatry in the University of Cambridge is supported by the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-20014) and NIHR Applied Research Collaboration East of England. Any views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the funders, IHU-JU2, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study used ONLY openly available human data that were originally located at: https://fcon_1000.projects.nitrc.org/indi/abide/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.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe ABIDE dataset is available to download at: https://fcon_1000.projects.nitrc.org/indi/abide/ The imaging rating tool, code to generate QC png images and analysis scripts are available at: https://github.com/sbedford0/FSQC. The full protocol can be found at: https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.kxygx9m6wg8j/v1