Home › Research › Vascular contributions
Harmonization Remains Unresolved: The Case of White Matter Hyperintensity Using ComBat And Deming Regression
Calvin D. Reyes, Robel K Gebre, Jeffrey L. Gunter, Mingzhao Hu, Christopher G. Schwarz, Nolan K. Meyer, Robert I. Reid, Kejal Kantarci et al.. Alzheimer s & Dementia, 2025-12-01
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Abstract Background Multi‐site aging and dementia studies are challenged by data heterogeneity caused by scanner (manufacturer and protocol) related variability. Quantitative analysis of white matter hyperintensity (WMH) from pooled samples, a traditional marker of cerebrovascular disease, is sensitive to machine variability. Our goal was to compare Deming (symmetric) linear regression and ComBat, a common method used for harmonizing neuroimaging measurements, for harmonizing WMH measurements on participants scanned on two different scanners (GE and Siemens) and protocols (2D FLAIR on GE and 3D FLAIR on Siemens). Methods Cognitively unimpaired (CU) ( n =53, age (mean (SD))=67 (15) years) and cognitively impaired (CI; MCI/dementia) ( n =34, age (mean (SD))=82 (9) years) participants from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging and Mayo ADRC were scanned on GE and Siemens scanners within a week of each other (typically done on the same day). WMH as a percentage of total intracranial volume was measured using multispectral segmentation of FLAIR and T1‐weighted images (Gunter et. al. AAIC 2023). We used Deming regression as it includes errors in both input dimensions. ComBat was applied using age, sex, and diagnosis as covariates, with scanner vendor and protocol as the batch variable. We assessed the inter‐scanner similarity using Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) analysis, where a value of zero indicates identical distributions, p >0.05 indicates no significant difference under H 0 . (Gretton et al., JMLR 2012). Results Our results showed that the distribution of WMH measurements, which were different in the CU group, were more similar after Deming than ComBat harmonization (Figure 1). This was confirmed by the lower MMD in the CU group from Deming regression (‐0.01 ( p =0.76) from 0.03 ( p =0.05)) compared to ComBat (0.04 ( p =0.02))(Figure 1). However, ComBat and Deming were unable to create distributions as compatible as original measurements for the CI group. Conclusion Using a unique dataset of the same participants scanned close in time on different scanner and protocols, we found that (1) MMD measurements were useful to test the need/improvement due to harmonization; (2) ComBat was not substantially better at creating compatible distributions between scanner vendors than Deming regression, and both were sometimes inadequate. Future work will require alternative models to linear scale and shift transformations.
Key findings
- We assessed the inter‐scanner similarity using Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) analysis, where a value of zero indicates identical distributions, p >0.05 indicates no significant difference under H 0 .
- Results Our results showed that the distribution of WMH measurements, which were different in the CU group, were more similar after Deming than ComBat harmonization (Figure 1).
- This was confirmed by the lower MMD in the CU group from Deming regression (‐0.01 ( p =0.76) from 0.03 ( p =0.05)) compared to ComBat (0.04 ( p =0.02))(Figure 1).
- Conclusion Using a unique dataset of the same participants scanned close in time on different scanner and protocols, we found that (1) MMD measurements were useful to test the need/improvement due to harmonization; (2) ComBat was not substantially better at creating compatible distributions between scanner vendors than Deming regression, and both were sometimes inadequate.
Why it matters
This methods study compared two ways of harmonizing white matter hyperintensity measurements taken on different scanners and found that Deming regression made the distributions more similar than ComBat in cognitively unimpaired participants. It addresses how to compare imaging data across sites in dementia research, but it does not test any treatment, cure, or prevention.
Study details
- Participants53
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 40/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Alzheimer s & Dementia) |
| Journal's citation record | 2 / 4 | Alzheimer s & Dementia: journal h-index 228 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 53 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 1 / 7 | Cited 1 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 0 / 5 | 0.3 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025 |
| Impact for its field and year | 1 / 6 | Cited 0.5× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 0 / 4 | Cited 1 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 4 / 4 | Last-listed author Prashanthi Vemuri: h-index 106 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 2 / 3 | Mayo Clinic: institution h-index 1,606 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 0 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete) |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 41434809) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Total | 40 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
- DOI: 10.1002/alz70861_108630
- PubMed: 41434809
- Original source →
- Free full text: Alzheimer s & Dementia →
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Reyes, C. D., Gebre, R. K., Gunter, J. L., Hu, M., Schwarz, C. G., Meyer, N. K., et al. (2025). Harmonization Remains Unresolved: The Case of White Matter Hyperintensity Using ComBat And Deming Regression. Alzheimer s & Dementia. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz70861_108630
Vancouver
Reyes CD, Gebre RK, Gunter JL, Hu M, Schwarz CG, Meyer NK, et al. Harmonization Remains Unresolved: The Case of White Matter Hyperintensity Using ComBat And Deming Regression. Alzheimer s & Dementia. 2025. doi:10.1002/alz70861_108630. PMID: 41434809.
BibTeX
@article{reyes2025-41434809,
author = {Reyes, Calvin D. and Gebre, Robel K and Gunter, Jeffrey L. and Hu, Mingzhao and Schwarz, Christopher G. and Meyer, Nolan K. and Reid, Robert I. and Kantarci, Kejal and others},
title = {{Harmonization Remains Unresolved: The Case of White Matter Hyperintensity Using ComBat And Deming Regression}},
journal = {Alzheimer s \& Dementia},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1002/alz70861_108630},
pmid = {41434809},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/alz70861_108630}
}
Related studies in Vascular contributions
Also tagged “cerebral”
900 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cerebral”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 900 tagged studies.