Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background Pooling multi-site MRI data is essential for well-powered neuroimaging analyses, particularly in Huntington’s disease (HD), where large cohorts are needed to study disease-stage heterogeneity and subtle progressive neuroanatomical change. However, scanner-related variability hinders direct data pooling, confounding image-level methods such as voxel-based morphometry (VBM). Superpixel-ComBat (SP-ComBat), a voxel-level image-harmonization framework, effectively removes scanner effects but depends on traveling-subject data that are rarely available retrospectively. We extend SP-ComBat to unpaired multi-site T1-weighted MRI by introducing a pseudo-pairing framework that leverages demographically matched controls across scanners as surrogate traveling subjects. Methods Two pipelines were developed to estimate scanner effects under retrospective constraints: pipeline 1 used a small set of well-matched pseudo-pairs (n = 4) with bootstrap resampling to address scanners with limited sample sizes, while pipeline 2 used the recommended number of pseudo-pairs (n = 16) without resampling. Pseudo-pair images were parcellated into 3D-superpixels, and ComBat was applied within clusters to estimate scanner-specific adjustments for native-space harmonization. Pipeline performance was assessed in a representative multi-study dataset comprising six scanners from three HD cohorts (HD-YAS, HD-CSF, TRACK-HD; N = 144) and replicated in the full multi-study dataset (FMD; N = 548). Results Both pipelines improved image quality, aligned scanner-specific intensities, and preserved disease-related structural patterns. Pipeline 2 showed superior parameter re-estimation stability and was selected for the FMD. Harmonization eliminated systematic segmentation errors, enabled a single unified VBM pipeline across scanners, and increased sensitivity to HD-related voxel-wise atrophy. Conclusions SP-ComBat was effectively adapted for harmonization of unpaired multi-site structural MRI, reducing scanner bias while preserving biological variability and supporting unified VBM analyses across scanners.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Coleman et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: