Diffusion microstructure in the population: variability and effect size of biophysical compartment model parameters over 100 subjects
Robbert Harms1, Rainer Goebel1, and Alard Roebroeck1

1Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands

Synopsis

Statistical power in neuroscience studies is often limited, leading to, among others, low reproducibility of results[1]. Robust effect size estimates over a large subject group are crucial for power assessments. Here, we computed these estimates for microstructural differences in splenium, body and genu of the Corpus Callosum (CC) using diffusion MRI microstructure modeling over 100 subjects. We fitted Tensor, Ball&Stick, NODDI and CHARMED using GPU-accelerated software (MDT) and extracted subject specific parameters for the CC for each model. We observe medium to large effect sizes (Cohen’s d=1-3) for dMRI microstructure measures, promising for power and reproducibility of dMRI microstructure studies.

Introduction

Statistical power in neuroscience studies is often limited, leading to, among others, overestimates of effect size in studies with low subject numbers, low reproducibility of results, and a reduced likelihood that a statistically significant result reflects a true effect [1]. However, to assess the power of a given study and sample size, one needs to have an estimate of the effect size. In diffusion MRI (dMRI) analysis, estimating the effect size is made difficult by two challenges. First, it is often not feasible to scan many subjects, essential for a reasonable effect size estimate. Here, we use 100 subjects of the 3T three-shell HARDI data from the HCP WU-Minn Consortium [2] to address the sample size requirements. Second, dMRI image analysis can require substantial computing time, especially when using parametric biophysical compartment dMRI models like CHARMED [3] and NODDI [4], that can have higher specificity than diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). Here, we use the flexible, modular GPU-accelerated Maastricht Diffusion Toolkit (MDT; [8]) to overcome prohibitive computing times. Using these tools, the aim of this study is to compute robust effect size estimates and assess variability and correlation of multiple dMRI microstructure modeling parameters focusing on the well-known microstructural architecture of the splenium, body and genu of the Corpus Callosum (CC).

Methods

The 100 non-related subjects 3T dataset (1.25mm isotropic, three shells of b=1000, 2000, 3000 s/mm^2, 90 directions each and 18 b0 volumes) from the HCP WU-Minn Consortium [2] were used for analysis in their preprocessed form [5]. Each dataset was fitted with the following models using MDT [8]: Tensor [6], Ball&Stick [7], NODDI [4] and CHARMED [3]. The Ball&Stick model was initialized using an S0 fit; all the other models were initialized using the theta and phi angles of the Ball&Stick fit. Average runtime of final model optimization per subject using a R9 280x ATI graphics card was 00h:02m:10s (non-linear DTI), 00h:01m:30s (Ball&Stick), 00h:06m:30s (NODDI), 00h:49m:30s (CHARMED) and a total runtime of approximately 134 hours over all subjects. A white matter skeleton was created from the average DTI FA map in MNI-152 space using the standard TBSS [9] pipeline and the following parameter maps were projected to this skeleton: FA (Tensor), SF (Stick Fraction; Ball&Stick), FR (Fraction of Restricted compartment; CHARMED), NDI (Neurite Density Index; NODDI) and FI (Fraction of Intracellular compartment; NODDI). Next, we aligned the JHU-ICBM-FA Mori [10] white matter atlas to the skeleton and applied the skeleton mask to arrive at a white matter parcellation map. We then extracted, for each subject and for each projected parameter map, the mean over voxel values for three corpus callosum regions of interests (ROIs): the splenium (3351 voxels), body (3379 voxels) and genu (2204 voxels). We computed mean voxel value over each of these ROIs, for each subject and model. The ROI and parameter specific group mean, standard deviation (StDv) and parameter correlations are reported over the 100 per-subject ROI mean values. Finally, to estimate effect sizes for CC splenium-body-genu differences, the Cohen's d factor was computed between the splenium-body and genu-body as: $$$\frac{\mu_1 - \mu_2}{\sqrt{(\sigma_1^2 + \sigma_2^2)/2}}$$$.

Results & Discussion

Figure 1 shows that effect sizes range from low (d=0.022 for FA genu-body) to very high (d=3.4 for FR splenium-body). Large effect size of 1-3 can be observed for many of the differences, most consistently (for both genu-body and splenium-body) for NDI and WIC (these are simply related: NDI = WIC / (WIC + WEC)). Here it should be noted that high values for normalized parameters approaching 1 could compress StDv estimates and thus inflate effect size estimates. However, although some values are high (e.g. FR) we observed little such ceiling effects (see Figure 2). FS, FR and FA showed a strong effect for splenium-body but small effect for genu-body. In figure 2, constant value differences (intercepts) can be observed with FS<FA<FR~=NDI. One clear outlier can be observed (NDI~=1). High between-model correlations (slope) can be observed between FA/FS, and the triangle FR/WIC/FA, for all three ROIs approximately equally.

Conclusion

Although differences between models are present and intra-subject CC differences are large, medium to large effect sizes (Cohen’s d=1-3) are observed for advanced dMRI microstructure measures. This is promising for power and reproducibility of dMRI microstructure studies.

Acknowledgements

This project has received funding from the European Union‘s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement n°602450. This paper reflects only the author’s views and the European Union is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

References

1. Katherine S. Button, John P. A. Ioannidis, Claire Mokrysz, Brian A. Nosek, Jonathan Flint, Emma S. J. Robinson & Marcus R. Munafò Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14, 365-376 (May 2013)

2. David C. Van Essen, Stephen M. Smith, Deanna M. Barch, Timothy E.J. Behrens, Essa Yacoub, Kamil Ugurbil, The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An overview, NeuroImage, Volume 80, 15 October 2013, Pages 62-79, ISSN 1053-8119

3. Yaniv Assaf, Peter J. Basser, Composite hindered and restricted model of diffusion (CHARMED) MR imaging of the human brain, NeuroImage, Volume 27, Issue 1, 1 August 2005, Pages 48-58, ISSN 1053-8119,

4. Hui Zhang, Torben Schneider, Claudia A. Wheeler-Kingshott, Daniel C. Alexander, NODDI: Practical in vivo neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging of the human brain, NeuroImage, Volume 61, Issue 4, 16 July 2012, Pages 1000-1016, ISSN 1053-8119

5. M.F. Glasser, S.N. Sotiropoulos, J.A. Wilson, T.S. Coalson, B. Fischl, J.L. Andersson, J. Xu, S. Jbabdi, M. Webster, J.R. Polimeni, D.C. Van Essen, and Jenkinson, M. – for the WU-Minn HCP Consortium. The minimal preprocessing pipelines for the Human Connectome Project. NeuroImage, 80:105-124, 2013.

6. Basser PJ, Mattiello J, LeBihan D. Estimation of the effective self-diffusion tensor from the NMR spin echo. J Magn Reson 1994;103: 247–254.

7. Behrens TE, Woolrich MW, Jenkinson M, Johansen-Berg H, Nunes RG, Clare S, Matthews PM, Brady JM, Smith SM. Characterization and propagation of uncertainty in diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Magn Reson Med 2003;50:1077–1088.

8. Robbert Harms, Silvia de Santis, Matteo Bastiani, Rainer Goebel, Alard Roebroeck. Diffusion Microstructure Modelling Using a Modular and Extensible GPU Accelerated Toolkit. E-poster presentation #3026 at ISMRM 2015 Toronto, abstract #3656.

9. Stephen M. Smith, Mark Jenkinson, Heidi Johansen-Berg, Daniel Rueckert, Thomas E. Nichols, Clare E. Mackay, Kate E. Watkins, Olga Ciccarelli, M. Zaheer Cader, Paul M. Matthews, Timothy E.J. Behrens, Tract-based spatial statistics: Voxelwise analysis of multi-subject diffusion data, NeuroImage, Volume 31, Issue 4, 15 July 2006, Pages 1487-1505, ISSN 1053-8119

10. Mori et al., MRI Atlas of Human White Matter. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2005)

Figures

The mean value per model parameter map on the TBSS skeleton in a sagittal slice through the CC (top row) and group mean, StDv and Cohen's d between splenium & body and genu & body (bottom row). White lines delineates the splenium, body and genu.

Scatterplots for all model parameters (blue: splenium, red: body, green: genu; see inset) with one point per subject and corresponding regression line fits (black is the identity line).



Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 24 (2016)
3086