Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31435738›Full record

ArticleBrain structure & function2019

Improving sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility of individual brainstem activation.

Eva Matt, Florian Ph S Fischmeister, Ahmad Amini, Simon D Robinson, Alexandra Weber, Thomas Foki, Elke R Gizewski, Roland Beisteiner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain structure & function, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

8 authors.

Eva MattDepartment of Neurology, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Florian Ph S FischmeisterDepartment of Neurology, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Ahmad AminiDepartment of Neurology, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Simon D RobinsonHigh Field Magnetic Resonance Centre, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Alexandra WeberDepartment of Neurology, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Thomas FokiDepartment of Neurology, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Elke R GizewskiDepartment of Neuroradiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstraße 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Roland BeisteinerDepartment of Neurology, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, 1090, Vienna, Austria. roland.beisteiner@meduniwien.ac.at.

Funding

Austrian Science Fund 31452Austrian Science Fund KLI455FWAustrian Science Fund FWF KLI 455Austrian Science Fund FWF P 31452Hochschuljubiläumsstiftung der Stadt Wien H- 263692/2013
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Functional imaging of the brainstem may open new avenues for clinical diagnostics. However, for reliable assessments of brainstem activation, further efforts improving signal quality are needed. Six healthy subjects performed four repeated functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) sessions on different days with jaw clenching as a motor task to elicit activation in the trigeminal motor nucleus. Functional images were acquired with a 7 T MR scanner using an optimized multiband EPI sequence. Activation measures in the trigeminal nucleus and a control region were assessed using different physiological noise correction methods (aCompCor and RETROICOR-based approaches with variable numbers of regressors) combined with cerebrospinal fluid or brainstem masking. Receiver-operating characteristic analyses accounting for sensitivity and specificity, activation overlap analyses to estimate the reproducibility between sessions, and intraclass correlation analyses (ICC) for testing reliability between subjects and sessions were used to systematically compare the physiological noise correction approaches. Masking the brainstem led to increased activation in the target ROI and resulted in higher values for the area under the curve (AUC) as a combined measure for sensitivity and specificity. With the highest values for AUC, activation overlap, and ICC, the most favorable physiological noise correction method was to control for the cerebrospinal fluid time series (aCompCor with one regressor). Brainstem motor nuclei activation can be reliably identified using high-field fMRI with optimized acquisition and processing strategies-even on single-subject level. Applying specific physiological noise correction methods improves reproducibility and reliability of brainstem activation encouraging future clinical applications.

Indexed as

Motor ActivityAdultArtifactsBrain MappingFemaleHumansImage EnhancementJawMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleReproducibility of ResultsROC CurveSignal-To-Noise RatioTrigeminal Motor NucleusBrainstemFunctional magnetic resonance imagingPhysiological noiseReliabilityReproducibilityTrigeminal motor nucleus

Identifiers

PMID31435738
PMCPMC6778541

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.