Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28230838›Full record

ReviewNature neuroscience2017

Studying neuroanatomy using MRI.

Jason P Lerch, André J W van der Kouwe, Armin Raznahan, Tomáš Paus, Heidi Johansen-Berg, Karla L Miller, Stephen M Smith, Bruce Fischl, Stamatios N Sotiropoulos

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature neuroscience, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 167 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
167citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Sex-Specific Associations of Irritability With Subcortical Brain Volumes.Biological psychiatry global open science · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Cutting-edge technologies in neural regeneration.Cell regeneration (London, England) · 2025
    Review

107 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

9 authors.

Jason P LerchProgram in Neuroscience and Mental Health, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada.
André J W van der KouweAthinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Research, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Charlestown, Massachusetts, USA.
Armin RaznahanDevelopmental Neurogenomics Unit, Child Psychiatry Branch, National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Tomáš PausRotman Research Institute, Baycrest, Toronto, Canada.
Heidi Johansen-BergOxford Centre for Functional MRI of the Brain (FMRIB), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Karla L MillerOxford Centre for Functional MRI of the Brain (FMRIB), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Stephen M SmithOxford Centre for Functional MRI of the Brain (FMRIB), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8166-069X
Bruce FischlAthinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Research, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Charlestown, Massachusetts, USA.
Stamatios N SotiropoulosOxford Centre for Functional MRI of the Brain (FMRIB), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

Section on Developmental NeurogenomicsZIAMH002949 · NIMH · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH · PI RAZNAHAN, ARMIN · 2016 to 2025
$30.0M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The study of neuroanatomy using imaging enables key insights into how our brains function, are shaped by genes and environment, and change with development, aging and disease. Developments in MRI acquisition, image processing and data modeling have been key to these advances. However, MRI provides an indirect measurement of the biological signals we aim to investigate. Thus, artifacts and key questions of correct interpretation can confound the readouts provided by anatomical MRI. In this review we provide an overview of the methods for measuring macro- and mesoscopic structure and for inferring microstructural properties; we also describe key artifacts and confounds that can lead to incorrect conclusions. Ultimately, we believe that, although methods need to improve and caution is required in interpretation, structural MRI continues to have great promise in furthering our understanding of how the brain works.

Indexed as

Image Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeuroanatomyAgingArtifactsBrainHumans

Identifiers

PMID28230838

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.