Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28316055›Full record

ArticleNeuroinformatics2017

A Comparison of Accelerated and Non-accelerated MRI Scans for Brain Volume and Boundary Shift Integral Measures of Volume Change: Evidence from the ADNI Dataset.

Emily N Manning, Kelvin K Leung, Jennifer M Nicholas, Ian B Malone, M Jorge Cardoso, Jonathan M Schott, Nick C Fox, Josephine Barnes, Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroinformatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Ultra-fast MRI for dementia diagnosis and treatment eligibility: A prospective study.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

9 authors.

Emily N ManningDementia Research Centre, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK. e.manning@ucl.ac.uk.
Kelvin K LeungDementia Research Centre, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.
Jennifer M NicholasDepartment of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Ian B MaloneDementia Research Centre, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.
M Jorge CardosoDementia Research Centre, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.
Jonathan M SchottDementia Research Centre, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.
Nick C FoxDementia Research Centre, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.
Josephine BarnesDementia Research Centre, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.
Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/L023784/2Medical Research Council MR/M009106/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess whether the use of accelerated MRI scans in place of non-accelerated scans influenced brain volume and atrophy rate measures in controls and subjects with mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease. We used data from 861 subjects at baseline, 573 subjects at 6 months and 384 subjects at 12 months from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). We calculated whole-brain, ventricular and hippocampal atrophy rates using the k-means boundary shift integral (BSI). Scan quality was visually assessed and the proportion of good quality accelerated and non-accelerated scans compared. We also compared MMSE scores, vascular burden and age between subjects with poor quality scans with those with good quality scans. Finally, we estimated sample size requirements for a hypothetical clinical trial when using atrophy rates from accelerated scans and non-accelerated scans. No significant differences in whole-brain, ventricular and hippocampal volumes and atrophy rates were found between accelerated and non-accelerated scans. Twice as many non-accelerated scan pairs suffered from at least some motion artefacts compared with accelerated scan pairs (p ≤ 0.001), which may influence the BSI. Subjects whose accelerated scans had significant motion had a higher mean vascular burden and age (p ≤ 0.05) whilst subjects whose non-accelerated scans had significant motion had poorer MMSE scores (p ≤ 0.05). No difference in estimated sample size requirements was found when using accelerated vs. non-accelerated scans. Accelerated scans reduce scan time and are better tolerated. Therefore it may be advantageous to use accelerated over non-accelerated scans in clinical trials that use ADNI-type protocols, especially in more cognitively impaired subjects.

Indexed as

Image Processing, Computer-AssistedAgedAged, 80 and overAlzheimer DiseaseAtrophyBrainCognitive DysfunctionDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedNeuropsychological TestsPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesAccelerated acquisitionAlzheimer’s diseaseBoundary shift integralBrain atrophyImage qualityNon-accelerated acquisition

Identifiers

PMID28316055
PMCPMC5443885

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.