Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35261126›Full record

SynthesisHuman brain mapping2022

(Un)common space in infant neuroimaging studies: A systematic review of infant templates.

Alexander J Dufford, C Alice Hahn, Hannah Peterson, Silvia Gini, Saloni Mehta, Alexis Alfano, Dustin Scheinost

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Human brain mapping, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

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

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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Molecular signatures of cortical expansion in the human fetal brain.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  11. Maturation of large-scale brain systems over the first month of life.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2023
    Article
  12. 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

7 authors.

Alexander J DuffordDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8846-5624
C Alice HahnDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Hannah PetersonDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Silvia GiniDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Saloni MehtaDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Alexis AlfanoDepartment of Psychology, Quinnipiac University, Hamden, Connecticut, USA.
Dustin ScheinostDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6301-1167

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
NRSA Training CoreTL1TR001864 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI CANTLEY, LLOYD G, EDELMAN, E. JENNIFER · 2016 to 2025
$9.9M
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR001864NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In neuroimaging, spatial normalization is an important step that maps an individual's brain onto a template brain permitting downstream statistical analyses. Yet, in infant neuroimaging, there remain several technical challenges that have prevented the establishment of a standardized template for spatial normalization. Thus, many different approaches are used in the literature. To quantify the popularity and variability of these approaches in infant neuroimaging studies, we performed a systematic review of infant magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies from 2000 to 2020. Here, we present results from 834 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Studies were classified into (a) processing data in single subject space, (b) using an off the shelf, or "off the shelf," template, (c) creating a study specific template, or (d) using a hybrid of these methods. We found that across the studies in the systematic review, single subject space was the most used (no common space). This was the most used common space for diffusion-weighted imaging and structural MRI studies while functional MRI studies preferred off the shelf atlases. We found a pattern such that more recently published studies are more commonly using off the shelf atlases. When considering special populations, preterm studies most used single subject space while, when no special populations were being analyzed, an off the shelf template was most common. The most used off the shelf templates were the UNC Infant Atlases (24%). Using a systematic review of infant neuroimaging studies, we highlight a lack of an established "standard" template brain in these studies.

Indexed as

Image Processing, Computer-AssistedNeuroimagingBrainDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMagnetic Resonance Imagingcommon spacefunctionalmagnetic resonance imagingneonatal

Identifiers

PMID35261126
PMCPMC9120551

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.