ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)
Calibration of MRI-based reference intervals to new samples.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Reference intervals, defined as intervals containing a new observation with a specified probability relative to reference data, would be clinically useful in assessing brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Brain charts, which are estimates of MRI phenotypes across covariates such as age and sex, can be used to construct reference intervals. However, the reference data used to fit intervals often differ from a new sample in terms of study design, MRI acquisition, and image preprocessing. Application of MRI reference intervals to new samples remains a challenging problem. Here, we propose a new method called reference interval calibration via conFormal prediction (ReForm) that adjusts reference intervals for a new sample. Our method builds on recent work in conformal prediction, which yields intervals with guaranteed coverage for new observations. Through resampling experiments in Lifespan Brain Chart Consortium cortical thickness data, we compare ReFormed reference intervals with refitting intervals, statistical harmonization methods, and model-based adjustment of intervals. Notably for patient privacy concerns, ReForm does not require sharing of reference data. Yet, our empirical results demonstrate that ReForm controls FPR similarly or better than alternative methods that require sharing reference data. Finally, we provide recommendations for practical applications of ReForm and an R package (https://github.com/andy1764/ReForm) for calibrating reference intervals using ReForm.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.