ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2023
Incidental Findings from 16,400 Brain MRI Examinations of Research Volunteers.
Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bioethics and medical oversight in multi-site observational neuroimaging studies with children and adolescents: 10 years of ABCD experience.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2026Article
- Proposing Incidental-Reporting and Data System: A classification system for incidental findings in radiology.World journal of radiology · 2026Review
- Neuroradiological abnormalities in individuals with first-episode psychosis - a retrospective cohort study.BMC psychiatry · 2026Article
- Prospective neuroimaging and neuropsychological evaluation in adults with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy.Epilepsia · 2025Article
- Brain health services for the secondary prevention of cognitive impairment and dementia: Opportunities, challenges, and the business case for existing and future facilities.The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease · 2025Review
- MRI findings in patients with psychogenic non-epileptic seizures: Prevalence, distribution, and classification of the findings. A single tertiary epilepsy center experience.Epilepsia open · 2025Article
- Lesion-Induced Blepharospasm: Epidemiology and Clinical Characteristics.Tremor and other hyperkinetic movements (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- Is Routine Neuroimaging Needed in Adult-Onset Isolated Cervical Dystonia?Tremor and other hyperkinetic movements (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeIncidental findings are discovered in neuroimaging research, ranging from trivial to life-threatening. We describe the prevalence and characteristics of incidental findings from 16,400 research brain MRIs, comparing spontaneous detection by nonradiology scanning staff versus formal neuroradiologist interpretation. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe prospectively collected 16,400 brain MRIs (7782 males, 8618 females; younger than 1 to 94 years of age; median age, 38 years) under an institutional review board directive intended to identify clinically relevant incidental findings. The study population included 13,150 presumed healthy volunteers and 3250 individuals with known neurologic diagnoses. Scanning staff were asked to flag concerning imaging findings seen during the scan session, and neuroradiologists produced structured reports after reviewing every scan.
resultsNeuroradiologists reported 13,593/16,400 (83%) scans as having normal findings, 2193/16,400 (13.3%) with abnormal findings without follow-up recommended, and 614/16,400 (3.7%) with "abnormal findings with follow-up recommended." The most common abnormalities prompting follow-up were vascular (263/614, 43%), neoplastic (130/614, 21%), and congenital (92/614, 15%). Volunteers older than 65 years of age were significantly more likely to have scans with abnormal findings (
conclusionsFour percent of individuals who undergo research brain MRIs have an incidental, potentially clinically significant finding. Routine neuroradiologist review of all scans yields a much higher rate of significant lesion detection than selective referral from nonradiologists who perform the examinations. Workflow and scan review processes need to be carefully considered when designing research protocols.
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.