Dear FSL experts,

Recently I run a VBM analysis (sample = 12 patients and 12 healthy controls...total sample = 24). Well, doing my SPSS statistics, and thinking about the best for controlling as many variables as possible that could influence in the results, I decided to include all those variables that had showed significant correlations with my variables of interest. Therefore, with this small sample, I decided to covariate for:

1. TIV (need to be introduced in VBM analysis...papers)
2. Age (need to be introduced in VBM analysis...papers)
3. HTA
4. Diabetis
5. Dislipemia
6. Alcohol Consumption


As suspected, I did not found any significant correlation between GM and any of my variables of interest. I was wondering if I was too much strict with the analysis taking into account that there were no statistical differences between patients and controls regarding (HTA, Diabetis, Dislipemia and Alcohol Consumption)...nearly significant differences were found only for age...and significant differences were found for GDS (Geriatric Depression Scale) scores...but those scores were not significantly related with any of my variables of interest....

I do not know if my approximation is the best one taking into account all the information I have provided...or I should repeat the analysis introducing only as covariates of no interest: TIV and Age...which have been demonstrated to have a direct effect over GM structure (see the two articles...it seems there are some controversy regarding gender in VBM analysis)

Any advice from your TEAM regarding the statistical approximation (GLM) I have used will be of utmost relevance and greatly appreciate, because I do not really know if:

a) I have introduced too much unncesary noise in the model.
b) My sample is so small that lack statistical power....but I have run other analysis with small samples and I got robust TFCE corrected results....
c) If I run again (in the case you advice to do so) the analysis taking into account only TIV and Age...this approximation is reasonable/justifiable?


Gender matters in brain structure (VBM) ? Some controversies...if any one in the FSL mailing list is interested regarding what path to follow...hoping to help other researchers...

1. Gender really matters

Neuroimage. 2010 Dec;53(4):1244-55. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.06.025. Epub 2010 Jun 16.

Head size, age and gender adjustment in MRI studies: a necessary nuisance?

Abstract

Imaging studies of cerebral volumes often adjust for factors such as age that may confound between-subject comparisons. However the use of nuisance covariates in imaging studies is inconsistent, which can make interpreting results across studies difficult. Using magnetic resonance images of 78 healthy controls we assessed the effects of age, gender, head size and scanner upgrade on region of interest (ROI) volumetry, cortical thickness and voxel-based morphometric (VBM) measures. We found numerous significant associations between these variables and volumetric measures: cerebral volumes and cortical thicknesses decreased with increasing age, men had larger volumes and smaller thicknesses than women, and increasing head size was associated with larger volumes. The relationships between most ROIs and head size volumes were non-linear. With age, gender, head size and upgrade in one model we found that volumes and thicknesses decreased with increasing age, women had larger volumes than men (VBM, whole-brain and white matter volumes), increasing head size was associated with larger volumes but not cortical thickness, and scanner upgrade had an effect on thickness and some volume measures. The effects of gender on cortical thickness when adjusting for head size, age and upgrade showed some non-significant effect (women>men), whereas the independent effect of head size showed little pattern. We conclude that age and head size should be considered in ROI volume studies, age, gender and upgrade should be considered for cortical thickness studies and all variables require consideration for VBM analyses. Division of all volumes by head size is unlikely to be adequate owing to their non-proportional relationship.

Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.





2. Gender does not matter


Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Dec 15;112(50):15468-73. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1509654112. Epub 2015 Nov 30.

Sex beyond the genitalia: The human brain mosaic.

Abstract

Whereas a categorical difference in the genitals has always been acknowledged, the question of how far these categories extend into human biology is still not resolved. Documented sex/gender differences in the brain are often taken as support of a sexually dimorphic view of human brains ("female brain" or "male brain"). However, such a distinction would be possible only if sex/gender differences in brain features were highly dimorphic (i.e., little overlap between the forms of these features in males and females) and internally consistent (i.e., a brain has only "male" or only "female" features). Here, analysis of MRIs of more than 1,400 human brains from four datasets reveals extensive overlap between the distributions of females and males for all gray matter, white matter, and connections assessed. Moreover, analyses of internal consistency reveal that brains with features that are consistently at one end of the "maleness-femaleness" continuum are rare. Rather, most brains are comprised of unique "mosaics" of features, some more common in females compared with males, some more common in males compared with females, and some common in both females and males. Our findings are robust across sample, age, type of MRI, and method of analysis. These findings are corroborated by a similar analysis of personality traits, attitudes, interests, and behaviors of more than 5,500 individuals, which reveals that internal consistency is extremely rare. Our study demonstrates that, although there are sex/gender differences in the brain, human brains do not belong to one of two distinct categories: male brain/female brain.



With my best wishes,

Rosalia.