If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination, volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you are again advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections.

A common limitation of neuroimaging studies is their small sample sizes. To overcome this hurdle, the Enhancing Neuro Imaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis (ENIGMA) Consortium combines neuroimaging data from many institutions worldwide. However, this introduces heterogeneity due to different scanning devices and sequences. ENIGMA projects commonly address this heterogeneity with random-effects meta-analysis or mixed-effects mega-analysis. Here we tested whether the batch adjustment method, ComBat, can further reduce site-related heterogeneity and thus increase statistical power. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses, mixed-effects mega-analyses and ComBat mega-analyses to compare cortical thickness, surface area and subcortical volumes between 2897 individuals with a diagnosis of schizophrenia and 3141 healthy controls from 33 sites. Specifically, we compared the imaging data between individuals with schizophrenia and healthy controls, covarying for age and sex. The use of ComBat substantially increased the statistical significance of the findings as compared to random-effects meta-analyses. The findings were more similar when comparing ComBat with mixed-effects mega-analysis, although ComBat still slightly increased the statistical significance. ComBat also showed increased statistical power when we repeated the analyses with fewer sites. Results were nearly identical when we applied the ComBat harmonization separately for cortical thickness, cortical surface area and subcortical volumes. Therefore, we recommend applying the ComBat function to attenuate potential effects of site in ENIGMA projects and other multi-site structural imaging work. We provide easy-to-use functions in R that work even if imaging data are partially missing in some brain regions, and they can be trained with one data set and then applied to another (a requirement for some analyses such as machine learning).

No abstract

Most methods for conducting meta-analysis of voxel-based neuroimaging studies do not assess whether effects are not null, but whether there is a convergence of peaks of statistical significance, and reduce the assessment of the evidence to a binary classification exclusively based on p-values (i.e., voxels can only be "statistically significant" or "non-statistically significant"). Here, we detail how to conduct a meta-analysis using Seed-based d Mapping with Permutation of Subject Images (SDM-PSI), a novel method that uses a standard permutation test to assess whether effects are not null. We also show how to grade the strength of the evidence according to a set of criteria that considers a range of statistical significance levels (from more liberal to more conservative), the amount of data or the detection of potential biases (e.g., small-study effect and excess of significance). To exemplify the procedure, we detail the conduction of a meta-analysis of voxel-based morphometry studies in obsessive-compulsive disorder, and we provide all the data already extracted from the manuscripts to allow the reader to replicate the metaanalysis easily. SDM-PSI can also be used for meta-analyses of functional magnetic resonance imaging, diffusion tensor imaging, position emission tomography and surface-based morphometry studies.

A relatively large number of studies have investigated the power of structural magnetic resonance imaging (sMRI) data to discriminate patients with schizophrenia from healthy controls. However, very few of them have also included patients with bipolar disorder, allowing the clinically relevant discrimination between both psychotic diagnostics. To assess the efficacy of sMRI data for diagnostic prediction in psychosis we objectively evaluated the discriminative power of a wide range of commonly used machine learning algorithms (ridge, lasso, elastic net and L0 norm regularized logistic regressions, a support vector classifier, regularized discriminant analysis, random forests and a Gaussian process classifier) on main sMRI features including grey and white matter voxel-based morphometry (VBM), vertex-based cortical thickness and volume, region of interest volumetric measures and wavelet-based morphometry (WBM) maps. All possible combinations of algorithms and data features were considered in pairwise classifications of matched samples of healthy controls (N = 127), patients with schizophrenia (N = 128) and patients with bipolar disorder (N = 128). Results show that the selection of feature type is important, with grey matter VBM (without data reduction) delivering the best diagnostic prediction rates (averaging over classifiers: schizophrenia vs. healthy 75%, bipolar disorder vs. healthy 63% and schizophrenia vs. bipolar disorder 62%) whereas algorithms usually yielded very similar results. Indeed, those grey matter VBM accuracy rates were not even improved by combining all feature types in a single prediction model. Further multi-class classifications considering the three groups simultaneously made evident a lack of predictive power for the bipolar group, probably due to its intermediate anatomical features, located between those observed in healthy controls and those found in patients with schizophrenia. Finally, we provide MRIPredict (https://www.nitrc.org/projects/mripredict/), a free tool for SPM, FSL and R, to easily carry out voxelwise predictions based on VBM images.

Published studies in Medicine (and virtually any other discipline) sometimes report that a difference or correlation did not reach statistical significance but do not report its effect size or any statistic from which the latter may be derived. Unfortunately, meta-analysts should not exclude these studies because their exclusion would bias the meta-analytic outcome, but also they cannot be included as null effect sizes because this strategy is also associated to bias. To overcome this problem, we have developed MetaNSUE, a novel method based on multiple imputations of the censored information. We also provide an R package and an easy-to-use Graphical User Interface for non-R meta-analysts.

Background While multiple studies have examined the brain functional correlates of reward, meta-analyses have either focused on studies using the monetary incentive delay (MID) task, or have adopted a broad strategy, combining data from studies using both monetary and non-monetary reward, as probed using a wide range of tasks. Objective To meta-analyze fMRI studies that used monetary reward and in which there was a definable cue-reward contingency. Studies were limited to those using monetary reward in order to avoid potential heterogeneity from use of other rewards, especially social rewards. Studies using gambling or delay discounting tasks were excluded on the grounds that reward anticipation is not easily quantifiable. Study eligibility English-language fMRI studies (i) that reported fMRI findings on healthy adults; (ii) that used monetary reward; and (iii) in which a cue that was predictive of reward was compared to a no win (or lesser win) condition. Only voxel-based studies were included; those where brain coverage was incomplete were excluded. Data sources Ovid, Medline and PsycInfo, from 2000 to 2020, plus checking of review articles and meta-analyses. Data synthesis Data were pooled using Seed-based d Mapping with Permutation of Subject Images (SDM-PSI). Heterogeneity among studies was examined using the I2 statistic. Publication bias was examined using funnel plots and statistical examination of asymmetries. Moderator variables including whether the task was pre-learnt, sex distribution, amount of money won and width of smoothing kernel were examined. Results Pooled data from 45 studies of reward anticipation revealed activations in the ventral striatum, the middle cingulate cortex/supplementary motor area and the insula. Pooled data from 28 studies of reward delivery again revealed ventral striatal activation, plus cortical activations in the anterior and posterior cingulate cortex. There was relatively little evidence of publication bias. Among moderating variables, only whether the task was pre-learnt exerted an influence. Conclusions According to this meta-analysis monetary reward anticipation and delivery both activate the ventral but not the dorsal striatum, and are associated with different patterns of cortical activation.

BackgroundA multitude of risk/protective factors for anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorders have been proposed. We conducted an umbrella review to summarize the evidence of the associations between risk/protective factors and each of the following disorders: specific phobia, social anxiety disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder, and to assess the strength of this evidence whilst controlling for several biases.MethodsPublication databases were searched for systematic reviews and meta-analyses examining associations between potential risk/protective factors and each of the disorders investigated. The evidence of the association between each factor and disorder was graded into convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, or non-significant according to a standardized classification based on: number of cases (>1000), random-effects p-values, 95% prediction intervals, confidence interval of the largest study, heterogeneity between studies, study effects, and excess of significance.ResultsNineteen systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included, corresponding to 216 individual studies covering 427 potential risk/protective factors. Only one factor association (early physical trauma as a risk factor for social anxiety disorder, OR 2.59, 95% CI 2.17–3.1) met all the criteria for convincing evidence. When excluding the requirement for more than 1000 cases, five factor associations met the other criteria for convincing evidence and 22 met the remaining criteria for highly suggestive evidence.ConclusionsAlthough the amount and quality of the evidence for most risk/protective factors for anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorders is limited, a number of factors significantly increase the risk for these disorders, may have potential prognostic ability and inform prevention.