Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35700598›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage. Clinical2022

Multi-site harmonization of MRI data uncovers machine-learning discrimination capability in barely separable populations: An example from the ABIDE dataset.

Sara Saponaro, Alessia Giuliano, Roberto Bellotti, Angela Lombardi, Sabina Tangaro, Piernicola Oliva, Sara Calderoni, Alessandra Retico

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage. Clinical, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Autism and Cortical Thickness Deviation From Neurotypical Controls: Evidence for a Spatial Association With Serotonin Receptors.Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Sara SaponaroUniversity of Pisa, Pisa, Italy; National Institute for Nuclear Physics (INFN), Pisa Division, Pisa, Italy.
Alessia GiulianoMedical Physics Department, San Luca Hospital, 55100 Lucca, Italy.
Roberto BellottiPhysics Department, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy; National Institute of Nuclear Physics (INFN), Bari Division, Bari, Italy.
Angela LombardiPhysics Department, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy; National Institute of Nuclear Physics (INFN), Bari Division, Bari, Italy. Electronic address: angela.lombardi@uniba.it.
Sabina TangaroNational Institute of Nuclear Physics (INFN), Bari Division, Bari, Italy; Department of Soil, Plant and Food Sciences (DISSPA), University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy.
Piernicola OlivaDepartment of Chemistry and Pharmacy, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy; National Institute for Nuclear Physics (INFN), Cagliari Division, Cagliari, Italy.
Sara CalderoniDevelopmental Psychiatry Unit - IRCCS Stella Maris Foundation, Pisa, Italy; Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Alessandra ReticoNational Institute for Nuclear Physics (INFN), Pisa Division, Pisa, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine Learning (ML) techniques have been widely used in Neuroimaging studies of Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) both to identify possible brain alterations related to this condition and to evaluate the predictive power of brain imaging modalities. The collection and public sharing of large imaging samples has favored an even greater diffusion of the use of ML-based analyses. However, multi-center data collections may suffer the batch effect, which, especially in case of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) studies, should be curated to avoid confounding effects for ML classifiers and masking biases. This is particularly important in the study of barely separable populations according to MRI data, such as subjects with ASD compared to controls with typical development (TD). Here, we show how the implementation of a harmo- nization protocol on brain structural features unlocks the case-control ML separation capability in the analysis of a multi-center MRI dataset. This effect is demonstrated on the ABIDE data collection, involving subjects encompassing a wide age range. After data harmonization, the overall ASD vs. TD discrimination capability by a Random Forest (RF) classifier improves from a very low performance (AUC = 0.58 ± 0.04) to a still low, but reasonably significant AUC = 0.67 ± 0.03. The performances of the RF classifier have been evaluated also in the age-specific subgroups of children, adolescents and adults, obtaining AUC = 0.62 ± 0.02, AUC = 0.65 ± 0.03 and AUC = 0.69 ± 0.06, respectively. Specific and consistent patterns of anatomical differences related to the ASD condition have been identified for the three different age subgroups.

Indexed as

Autism Spectrum DisorderMagnetic Resonance ImagingAdolescentAdultBrainChildHumansMachine LearningNeuroimagingASDFreeSurferHarmonizationMachine learningMulti-site

Identifiers

PMID35700598
PMCPMC9198380

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.