Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28154532›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in neuroinformatics2017

Whole Brain Magnetic Resonance Image Atlases: A Systematic Review of Existing Atlases and Caveats for Use in Population Imaging.

David Alexander Dickie, Susan D Shenkin, Devasuda Anblagan, Juyoung Lee, Manuel Blesa Cabez, David Rodriguez, James P Boardman, Adam Waldman, Dominic E Job, Joanna M Wardlaw

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in neuroinformatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Longitudinal diffusion tensor imaging correlates with amyloid burden in Down syndrome.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors.

David Alexander DickieBrain Research Imaging Centre, Neuroimaging Sciences, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, The University of EdinburghEdinburgh, UK; Scottish Imaging Network, A Platform for Scientific Excellence (SINAPSE) CollaborationGlasgow, UK.
Susan D ShenkinBrain Research Imaging Centre, Neuroimaging Sciences, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, The University of EdinburghEdinburgh, UK; Geriatric Medicine Unit, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, The University of EdinburghEdinburgh, UK; Department of Psychology, Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology, The University of EdinburghEdinburgh, UK.
Devasuda AnblaganBrain Research Imaging Centre, Neuroimaging Sciences, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, The University of EdinburghEdinburgh, UK; Scottish Imaging Network, A Platform for Scientific Excellence (SINAPSE) CollaborationGlasgow, UK; MRC Centre for Reproductive Health, Queen's Medical Research InstituteEdinburgh, UK.
Juyoung LeeGraduate Training Centre of Neuroscience, International Max Planck Research School, University of Tübingen Tübingen, Germany.
Manuel Blesa CabezMRC Centre for Reproductive Health, Queen's Medical Research Institute Edinburgh, UK.
David RodriguezBrain Research Imaging Centre, Neuroimaging Sciences, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, The University of EdinburghEdinburgh, UK; Scottish Imaging Network, A Platform for Scientific Excellence (SINAPSE) CollaborationGlasgow, UK.
James P BoardmanMRC Centre for Reproductive Health, Queen's Medical Research Institute Edinburgh, UK.
Adam WaldmanBrain Research Imaging Centre, Neuroimaging Sciences, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, The University of Edinburgh Edinburgh, UK.
Dominic E JobBrain Research Imaging Centre, Neuroimaging Sciences, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, The University of EdinburghEdinburgh, UK; Scottish Imaging Network, A Platform for Scientific Excellence (SINAPSE) CollaborationGlasgow, UK.
Joanna M WardlawBrain Research Imaging Centre, Neuroimaging Sciences, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, The University of EdinburghEdinburgh, UK; Scottish Imaging Network, A Platform for Scientific Excellence (SINAPSE) CollaborationGlasgow, UK; Department of Psychology, Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology, The University of EdinburghEdinburgh, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0701127Medical Research Council MR/K026992/1Medical Research Council MR/N003403/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Brain MRI atlases may be used to characterize brain structural changes across the life course. Atlases have important applications in research, e.g., as registration and segmentation targets to underpin image analysis in population imaging studies, and potentially in future in clinical practice, e.g., as templates for identifying brain structural changes out with normal limits, and increasingly for use in surgical planning. However, there are several caveats and limitations which must be considered before successfully applying brain MRI atlases to research and clinical problems. For example, the influential Talairach and Tournoux atlas was derived from a single fixed cadaveric brain from an elderly female with limited clinical information, yet is the basis of many modern atlases and is often used to report locations of functional activation. We systematically review currently available whole brain structural MRI atlases with particular reference to the implications for population imaging through to emerging clinical practice. We found 66 whole brain structural MRI atlases world-wide. The vast majority were based on T1, T2, and/or proton density (PD) structural sequences, had been derived using parametric statistics (inappropriate for brain volume distributions), had limited supporting clinical or cognitive data, and included few younger (>5 and <18 years) or older (>60 years) subjects. To successfully characterize brain structural features and their changes across different stages of life, we conclude that whole brain structural MRI atlases should include: more subjects at the upper and lower extremes of age; additional structural sequences, including fluid attenuation inversion recovery (FLAIR) and T2

Indexed as

agingatlases as topicbrainbrain mappingMRI imagingneurodegenerationneurodevelopmentsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID28154532
PMCPMC5244468

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.