Elsevier

NeuroImage

Volume 40, Issue 4, 1 May 2008, Pages 1429-1435
NeuroImage

Comment
Ten simple rules for reporting voxel-based morphometry studies

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.01.003Get rights and content

Abstract

Voxel-based morphometry [Ashburner, J. and Friston, K.J., 2000. Voxel-based morphometry—the methods. NeuroImage 11(6 Pt 1), 805–821] is a commonly used tool for studying patterns of brain change in development or disease and neuroanatomical correlates of subject characteristics. In performing a VBM study, many methodological options are available; if the study is to be easily interpretable and repeatable, the processing steps and decisions must be clearly described. Similarly, unusual methods and parameter choices should be justified in order to aid readers in judging the importance of such options or in comparing the work with other studies. This editorial suggests core principles that should be followed and information that should be included when reporting a VBM study in order to make it transparent, replicable and useful.

Introduction

Voxel-based morphometry (Ashburner and Friston, 2000, Mechelli et al., 2005) is becoming increasingly widely used as a tool to examine patterns of brain change in healthy aging (Good et al., 2001) or neurodegenerative disease (Baron et al., 2001) and neuroanatomical correlates of behavioural or cognitive deficits (Abell et al., 1999). VBM essentially involves voxel-wise statistical analysis of pre-processed structural MR images. Although much of the processing and analysis is automated in software packages such as SPM,1 many methodological decisions remain, including what template to use for normalisation, what level and type of correction to use and how best to display results. Different approaches, such as VBM using RAVENS maps (Davatzikos et al., 2001), introduce yet more options. It can therefore be difficult to replicate or draw conclusions from VBM studies if the processing steps are not clearly described. Similarly, if unusual methods or parameters are employed without sufficient justification, it can be challenging for readers to judge the potential impact on results or to compare the work with other studies. In light of these issues, this editorial presents a set of recommendations, in the form of ten “rules” accompanied by a checklist, which we hope will be helpful to authors when writing up VBM studies. The rules are intended to outline core principles that should be followed and information that should be included when reporting a VBM study in order to make it transparent, replicable and useful. Since the field is rapidly developing, such rules must not be overly restrictive; therefore in some instances, where a clear protocol cannot be stated, general advice is given in the hope of aiding the reader to follow good practice. As VBM data sets accumulate and alternative procedures and techniques proliferate, we feel that guidelines are crucial for clear scientific communication and further development of the field. Additional motivation for this work came from a related effort in the field of functional brain imaging (“Guidelines for reporting an fMRI study”, Poldrack et al., in press).2

Section snippets

Set out the rationale for your study and describe the data fully

What are the key experimental questions, and why was VBM preferred over other techniques in order to address these questions? Prior hypotheses should be stated; either experimental ones or a priori anatomical or spatial regions in which effects might be expected (Maguire et al., 2000). This is particularly important if search volumes are restricted when correcting for multiple statistical tests during data analysis (see Rule 5). The study design should be described in enough detail for readers

Explain how the brain segmentations are produced

The inputs to VBM's statistical analysis are derived from structural MR images using tissue segmentation, spatial normalisation and smoothing. Additional pre-processing is often performed before the main segmentation step, generally using automatic algorithms such as MR bias correction or skull stripping, or manual techniques such as semi-automatic brain segmentation or interactive reorientation. Multiple processes may be combined within unified algorithms, such as that of Ashburner and Friston

Describe the method of inter-subject spatial normalisation

In order to compare different subjects, it is essential to use some kind of registration algorithm to bring the images into at least approximate correspondence. Both the technique used and the reference space to which brains are aligned can impact on the results (Senjem et al., 2005), so clear reporting is crucial. As with the other pre-processing steps (see Rule 2), if a popular software package is used, deviations from the default options should be highlighted. If a non-standard approach is

Make your statistical design transparent

There are two issues here, model specification and contrast testing. When constructing a model, it is important to be clear about which variables are included, and why. In the case of factorial designs, it should be obvious to the reader exactly what the factors were, the levels of each factor, and which interactions between factors were modelled. With estimation methods more advanced than ordinary least squares, it may be necessary to report extra information; for example, SPM5 includes

Be clear about the significance of your findings

As with other mass-univariate image analysis techniques, a large number of statistical tests are performed in a VBM study. The method used to correct for multiple testing should be both clearly stated and carefully considered—ideally, a priori. VBM is often performed on limited numbers of subjects (for example, to investigate rare disorders), when there is a temptation to report uncorrected results due to low statistical power. If this is done, it should be made obvious and it is probably best

Present results unambiguously

The type and level of correction should be stated in all figure and table legends, and if the statistical parametric map (SPM) is displayed as orthogonal slices or sections then coordinates should be given. It is helpful to present tables that include statistic values and cluster sizes, as well as coordinates of local maxima. SPMs should be displayed on a template that represents some form of average anatomy, for example, the MNI T1 template often used for normalisation, or ideally, a

Clarify and justify any non-standard statistical analyses

As a general principle, the less standard the analysis, the more thoroughly it should be explained. Here, we discuss three of the more common examples. Contrast masking may be used to disambiguate multiple possible causes of an effect or to define smaller search regions, in which case authors should clarify not only which contrasts were analysed, which were used for masking and at what threshold, but also the motivation for doing so and their interpretation. If a conjunction of analyses is

Guard against common pitfalls

Here we discuss a few potential problems with VBM analyses that might be easily overlooked. Firstly, note that while voxel-wise multiple testing is usually corrected for (see Rule 5), most software packages do nothing to correct for the user's investigation of multiple contrasts—the more conventional multiple-comparison problem (Hochberg and Tamhane, 1987). A simple example of this occurs if two opposite single-tailed t-contrasts are analysed: if findings in either contrast could be considered

Recognise the limitations of the technique

Like all image analysis methods, VBM has inherent limitations (Bookstein, 2001). The basic premise of inter-subject spatial normalisation is problematic: different subjects can have different gyral variants with no “true” correspondence between them and information from structural MRI (even manual sulcal labelling) does not necessarily predict underlying cytoarchitectonic borders (Amunts et al., 2007). Normalisation accuracy is also likely to vary between brain regions, for example, highly

Interpret your results cautiously and in context

When implemented rigorously and interpreted carefully, VBM can be a powerful technique. Authors should be forthright in discussing potential sources of bias or imprecision, whether they arise from the study's design or analysis, or from the nature of VBM itself. Particular care should be taken when interpreting results which appear fragile with respect to more arbitrary aspects of the method such as pre-processing options and nuisance variables. A conservative approach based on robust findings,

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to John Ashburner for his helpful comments and to Karl Friston for inviting the submission of this paper for review. We thank the authors of “Guidelines for reporting an fMRI study” for sharing an early draft of their work. Chris Frost provided helpful statistical advice. We are grateful to the reviewers, who made numerous detailed suggestions.

GRR is supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and GlaxoSmithKline through an Industrial CASE Studentship.

References (38)

Cited by (219)

  • Contributions of Polygenic Risk and Disease Status to Gray Matter Abnormalities in Major Depression

    2024, Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging
View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text