Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26594340›Full record

ArticleF1000Research2015

Creating 3D visualizations of MRI data: A brief guide.

Christopher R Madan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in F1000Research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. The march to harmonized imaging standards for retinal imaging.Progress in retinal and eye research · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. A Review on Treatment-Related Brain Changes in Aphasia.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2020
    Review
  17. Early ictal recruitment of midline thalamus in mesial temporal lobe epilepsy.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2019
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Cultural specialization of visual cortex.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Christopher R MadanDepartment of Psychology, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data is itself 3D, it is often difficult to adequately present the results papers and slides in 3D. As a result, findings of MRI studies are often presented in 2D instead. A solution is to create figures that include perspective and can convey 3D information; such figures can sometimes be produced by standard functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) analysis packages and related specialty programs. However, many options cannot provide functionality such as visualizing activation clusters that are both cortical and subcortical (i.e., a 3D glass brain), the production of several statistical maps with an identical perspective in the 3D rendering, or animated renderings. Here I detail an approach for creating 3D visualizations of MRI data that satisfies all of these criteria. Though a 3D 'glass brain' rendering can sometimes be difficult to interpret, they are useful in showing a more overall representation of the results, whereas the traditional slices show a more local view. Combined, presenting both 2D and 3D representations of MR images can provide a more comprehensive view of the study's findings.

Indexed as

brain mappingfMRIimage processingMRI visualizationneuroanatomyROI

Identifiers

PMID26594340
PMCPMC4648228

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.