SynthesisNeuroradiology2021
A quantitative approach for measuring laterality in clinical fMRI for preoperative language mapping.
Synthesis in Neuroradiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposefMRI is increasingly used for presurgical language mapping, but lack of standard methodology has made it difficult to combine/compare data across institutions or determine the relative efficacy of different approaches. Here, we describe a quantitative analytic framework for determining language laterality in clinical fMRI that addresses these concerns.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed fMRI data from 59 patients who underwent presurgical language mapping at our institution with identical imaging and behavioral protocols. First, we compared the efficacy of different regional masks in capturing language activations. Then, we systematically explored how laterality indices (LIs) computed from these masks vary as a function of task and activation threshold. Finally, we determined the percentile threshold that maximized the correlation between the results of our LI approach and the laterality assessments from the original clinical radiology reports.
resultsFirst, we found that a regional mask derived from a meta-analysis of the fMRI literature better captured language task activations than masks based on anatomically defined language areas. Then, we showed that an LI approach based on this functional mask and percentile thresholding of subject activation can quantify the relative ability of different language tasks to lateralize language function at the population level. Finally, we determined that the 92nd percentile of subject-level activation provides the optimal LI threshold with which to reproduce the original clinical reports.
conclusionA quantitative framework for determining language laterality that uses a functionally-derived language mask and percentile thresholding of subject activation can combine/compare results across tasks and patients and reproduce clinical assessments of language laterality.
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.