Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33248256›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2021

Is it time to switch your T1W sequence? Assessing the impact of prospective motion correction on the reliability and quality of structural imaging.

Lei Ai, R Cameron Craddock, Nim Tottenham, Jonathan P Dyke, Ryan Lim, Stanley Colcombe, Michael Milham, Alexandre R Franco

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Two axes of white matter development.Nature communications · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Lei AiCenter for the Developing Brain, Child Mind Institute, New York, NY, United States.
R Cameron CraddockDepartment of Diagnostic Medicine, The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Austin, TX, United States.
Nim TottenhamDepartment of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.
Jonathan P DykeCitigroup Biomedical Imaging Center, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
Ryan LimCenter for Biomedical Imaging and Neuromodulation, Nathan S. Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research, Orangeburg, NY, United States.
Stanley ColcombeCenter for Biomedical Imaging and Neuromodulation, Nathan S. Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research, Orangeburg, NY, United States; Department of Psychiatry, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
Michael MilhamCenter for the Developing Brain, Child Mind Institute, New York, NY, United States; Center for Biomedical Imaging and Neuromodulation, Nathan S. Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research, Orangeburg, NY, United States.
Alexandre R FrancoCenter for the Developing Brain, Child Mind Institute, New York, NY, United States; Center for Biomedical Imaging and Neuromodulation, Nathan S. Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research, Orangeburg, NY, United States; Department of Psychiatry, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States. Electronic address: alexandre.franco@childmind.org.
Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research · USChild Mind Institute · USCitigroup · USColumbia University · USThe University of Texas at Austin · US

Funding

Predicting Heterogeneous Neurodevelopmental Outcomes in School-age Children with Early Caregiving AdversitiesR01MH091864 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI MILHAM, MICHAEL PETER, TOTTENHAM, NIM · 2010 to 2022
$5.1M
Mapping interindividual variation in the aging connectomeR01AG047596 · NIA · NATHAN S. KLINE INSTITUTE FOR PSYCH RES · PI COLCOMBE, STAN J, MILHAM, MICHAEL PETER · 2015 to 2019
$3.1M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG047596NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH091864
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

New large neuroimaging studies, such as the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study (ABCD) and Human Connectome Project (HCP) Development studies are adopting a new T1-weighted imaging sequence with prospective motion correction (PMC) in favor of the more traditional 3-Dimensional Magnetization-Prepared Rapid Gradient-Echo Imaging (MPRAGE) sequence. Here, we used a developmental dataset (ages 5-21, N = 348) from the Healthy Brain Network (HBN) Initiative to directly compare two widely used MRI structural sequences: one based on the Human Connectome Project (MPRAGE) and another based on the ABCD study (MPRAGE+PMC). We aimed to determine if the morphometric measurements obtained from both protocols are equivalent or if one sequence has a clear advantage over the other. The sequences were also compared through quality control measurements. Inter- and intra-sequence reliability were assessed with another set of participants (N = 71) from HBN that performed two MPRAGE and two MPRAGE+PMC sequences within the same imaging session, with one MPRAGE (MPRAGE1) and MPRAGE+PMC (MPRAGE+PMC1) pair at the beginning of the session and another pair (MPRAGE2 and MPRAGE+PMC2) at the end of the session. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) scores for morphometric measurements such as volume and cortical thickness showed that intra-sequence reliability is the highest with the two MPRAGE+PMC sequences and lowest with the two MPRAGE sequences. Regarding inter-sequence reliability, ICC scores were higher for the MPRAGE1 - MPRAGE+PMC1 pair at the beginning of the session than the MPRAGE1 - MPRAGE2 pair, possibly due to the higher motion artifacts in the MPRAGE2 run. Results also indicated that the MPRAGE+PMC sequence is robust, but not impervious, to high head motion. For quality control metrics, the traditional MPRAGE yielded better results than MPRAGE+PMC in 5 of the 8 measurements. In conclusion, morphometric measurements evaluated here showed high inter-sequence reliability between the MPRAGE and MPRAGE+PMC sequences, especially in images with low head motion. We suggest that studies targeting hyperkinetic populations use the MPRAGE+PMC sequence, given its robustness to head motion and higher reliability scores. However, neuroimaging researchers studying non-hyperkinetic participants can choose either MPRAGE or MPRAGE+PMC sequences, but should carefully consider the apparent tradeoff between relatively increased reliability, but reduced quality control metrics when using the MPRAGE+PMC sequence.

Indexed as

AdolescentBrainChildChild, PreschoolConnectomeFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedImaging, Three-DimensionalMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleReproducibility of ResultsSignal-To-Noise RatioYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID33248256
PMCPMC7898192
OpenAlexW3109127063

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.