Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30565907›Full record

ArticleJournal of psychiatry & neuroscience : JPN2019

Head motion: the dirty little secret of neuroimaging in psychiatry

Carolina Makowski, Martin Lepage, Alan C. Evans

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of psychiatry & neuroscience : JPN, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06779825 (Impact of Stimulants and In-Scanner Motion on FMRI Neurofeedback and Task Performance in ADHD), which is not on this map. Cited by 44 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

NCT06779825 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Impact of Stimulants and In-Scanner Motion on FMRI Neurofeedback and Task Performance in ADHD

TypeobservationalSponsorBoston Children's HospitalRan2025 to 2026Enrolled30ConditionsADHDArmsfMRI Neurofeedback attention task
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Quality over quantity: powering neuroimaging samples in psychiatry.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2024
    Review
  17. Leveraging ultra-high field (7T) MRI in psychiatric research.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2024
    Review
  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

3 authors.

Carolina MakowskiFrom the McGill Centre for Integrative Neuroscience, McConnell Brain Imaging Centre, Montreal Neurological Institute, McGill University, Montreal, Que., Canada (Makowski, Evans); and the Douglas Mental Health University Institute, Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Verdun, Que., Canada (Makowski, Lepage).
Martin LepageFrom the McGill Centre for Integrative Neuroscience, McConnell Brain Imaging Centre, Montreal Neurological Institute, McGill University, Montreal, Que., Canada (Makowski, Evans); and the Douglas Mental Health University Institute, Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Verdun, Que., Canada (Makowski, Lepage).
Alan C. EvansFrom the McGill Centre for Integrative Neuroscience, McConnell Brain Imaging Centre, Montreal Neurological Institute, McGill University, Montreal, Que., Canada (Makowski, Evans); and the Douglas Mental Health University Institute, Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Verdun, Que., Canada (Makowski, Lepage).

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Psychiatry is at a crossroads when choosing final samples for analysis of neuroimaging data. Many patient populations exhibit significantly increased motion in the scanner compared with healthy controls, suggesting that more patients would need to be excluded to obtain a clean sample. However, this need is often overshadowed by the extensive amount of time and effort required to recruit these valuable and uncommon samples. This commentary sheds light on the impact of motion on imaging studies, drawing examples from psychiatric patient samples to better understand how head motion can confound interpretation of clinically oriented questions. We discuss the impact of even subtle motion artifacts on the interpretation of results as well as how different levels of stringency in quality control can affect findings within nearly identical samples. We also summarize recent initiatives toward harmonization of quality-control procedures as well as tools to prospectively and retrospectively correct for motion artifacts.

Indexed as

ArtifactsGuidelines as TopicHeadHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMental DisordersMovementNeuroimagingQuality ControlRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID30565907
PMCPMC6306289

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.