ArticlePloS one2021
Quantity and quality: Normative open-access neuroimaging databases.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Demographic reporting across a decade of neuroimaging: a systematic review.Brain imaging and behavior · 2022Pooled it
- Detailed microCT imaging protocol for ex vivo rat stomachs with comparative analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Generation of high-resolution MPRAGE-like images from 3D head MRI localizer (AutoAlign Head) images using a deep learning-based model.Japanese journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Time-of-Flight MRA of Intracranial Aneurysms with Interval Surveillance, Clinical Segmentation and Annotations.Scientific data · 2024Article
- Cognitive criteria in HIV: greater consensus is needed.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The focus of this article is to compare twenty normative and open-access neuroimaging databases based on quantitative measures of image quality, namely, signal-to-noise (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR). We further the analysis through discussing to what extent these databases can be used for the visualization of deeper regions of the brain, such as the subcortex, as well as provide an overview of the types of inferences that can be drawn. A quantitative comparison of contrasts including T1-weighted (T1w) and T2-weighted (T2w) images are summarized, providing evidence for the benefit of ultra-high field MRI. Our analysis suggests a decline in SNR in the caudate nuclei with increasing age, in T1w, T2w, qT1 and qT2* contrasts, potentially indicative of complex structural age-dependent changes. A similar decline was found in the corpus callosum of the T1w, qT1 and qT2* contrasts, though this relationship is not as extensive as within the caudate nuclei. These declines were accompanied by a declining CNR over age in all image contrasts. A positive correlation was found between scan time and the estimated SNR as well as a negative correlation between scan time and spatial resolution. Image quality as well as the number and types of contrasts acquired by these databases are important factors to take into account when selecting structural data for reuse. This article highlights the opportunities and pitfalls associated with sampling existing databases, and provides a quantitative backing for their usage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.