Open AccessTest–retest and between‐site reliability in a multicenter fMRI study
Author(s) -
Friedman Lee,
Stern Hal,
Brown Gregory G.,
Mathalon Daniel H.,
Turner Jessica,
Glover Gary H.,
Gollub Randy L.,
Lauriello John,
Lim Kelvin O.,
Can Tyrone,
Greve Douglas N.,
Bockholt Henry Jeremy,
Belger Aysenil,
Mueller Bryon,
Doty Michael J.,
He Jianchun,
Wells William,
Smyth Padhraic,
Pieper Steve,
Kim Seyoung,
Kubicki Marek,
Vangel Mark,
Potkin Steven G.
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
human brain mapping
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.005
H-Index - 191
eISSN - 1097-0193
pISSN - 1065-9471
DOI - 10.1002/hbm.20440
Subject(s) - intraclass correlation , reliability (semiconductor) , context (archaeology) , psychology , functional magnetic resonance imaging , block design , computer science , audiology , statistics , pattern recognition (psychology) , artificial intelligence , mathematics , psychometrics , neuroscience , developmental psychology , medicine , quantum mechanics , paleontology , power (physics) , physics , combinatorics , biology
In the present report, estimates of test–retest and between‐site reliability of fMRI assessments were produced in the context of a multicenter fMRI reliability study (FBIRN Phase 1, www.nbirn.net ). Five subjects were scanned on 10 MRI scanners on two occasions. The fMRI task was a simple block design sensorimotor task. The impulse response functions to the stimulation block were derived using an FIR‐deconvolution analysis with FMRISTAT. Six functionally‐derived ROIs covering the visual, auditory and motor cortices, created from a prior analysis, were used. Two dependent variables were compared: percent signal change and contrast‐to‐noise‐ratio. Reliability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients derived from a variance components analysis. Test–retest reliability was high, but initially, between‐site reliability was low, indicating a strong contribution from site and site‐by‐subject variance. However, a number of factors that can markedly improve between‐site reliability were uncovered, including increasing the size of the ROIs, adjusting for smoothness differences, and inclusion of additional runs. By employing multiple steps, between‐site reliability for 3T scanners was increased by 123%. Dropping one site at a time and assessing reliability can be a useful method of assessing the sensitivity of the results to particular sites. These findings should provide guidance toothers on the best practices for future multicenter studies. Hum Brain Mapp, 2008. © 2007 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.