Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparison of approaches to control for intracranial volume in research on the association of brain volumes with cognitive outcomes
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparison of approaches to control for intracranial volume in research on the association of brain volumes with cognitive outcomes
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparison of approaches to control for intracranial volume in research on the association of brain volumes with cognitive outcomes
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparison of approaches to control for intracranial volume in research on the association of brain volumes with cognitive outcomes
2024
Overview
Most neuroimaging studies linking regional brain volumes with cognition correct for total intracranial volume (ICV), but methods used for this correction differ across studies. It is unknown whether different ICV correction methods yield consistent results. 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 four ICV correction approaches. Approaches evaluated included: no correction; dividing regional volumes by 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 2320 regression models. When the association between brain volume and cognitive performance was close to null, all approaches produced similar estimates close to the null. When associations between a regional volume and cognitive test were not null, the adjustment and residual approaches typically produced similar estimates, but these estimates were inconsistent with results from the crude and proportional approaches. For example, when using the crude approach, an increase of 0.114 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.103–0.125) in fluid intelligence was associated with each unit increase in hippocampal volume. However, when using the adjustment approach, the increase was 0.055 (95% CI: 0.043–0.068), while the proportional approach showed a decrease of −0.025 (95% CI: −0.035 to −0.014). Different commonly used methods to correct for ICV yielded inconsistent results. The proportional method diverges notably from other methods and results were sometimes biologically implausible. A simple regression adjustment for ICV produced biologically plausible associations. Different commonly used methods to correct for intracranial volume (ICV) yielded inconsistent results, representing significant challenges for reproducibility in neuroimaging research. The proportional method diverges notably from other methods and results were sometimes biologically implausible. A simple regression adjustment for ICV produced biologically plausible associations.
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Inc
Subject
