4.7 Article

Confound modelling in UK Biobank brain imaging

Journal

NEUROIMAGE
Volume 224, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117002

Keywords

Epidemiological studies; Image analysis; Confounds; Multi-modal data integration; Big data imaging; Data modelling; Statistica l modelling; Machine learning

Funding

  1. UK Medical Research Council
  2. Wellcome Trust [203139/Z/16/Z]
  3. Wellcome Trust UK Strategic Award [098369/Z/12/Z]
  4. Health Data Research UK
  5. NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre
  6. Wellcome Trust

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Dealing with confounds is essential in large cohort studies to address unexplained variance and spurious correlations. The UK Biobank is a powerful resource for studying associations between imaging and non-imaging measures, but the high statistical power also increases sensitivity to confound effects. Researchers must carefully consider these factors.
Dealing with confounds is an essential step in large cohort studies to address problems such as unexplained variance and spurious correlations. UK Biobank is a powerful resource for studying associations between imaging and non-imaging measures such as lifestyle factors and health outcomes, in part because of the large subject numbers. However, the resulting high statistical power also raises the sensitivity to confound effects, which therefore have to be carefully considered. In this work we describe a set of possible confounds (including non-linear effects and interactions that researchers may wish to consider for their studies using such data). We include descriptions of how we can estimate the confounds, and study the extent to which each of these confounds affects the data, and the spurious correlations that may arise if they are not controlled. Finally, we discuss several issues that future studies should consider when dealing with confounds.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available