Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37090794›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2023

The art and science of using quality control to understand and improve fMRI data.

Joshua B Teves, Javier Gonzalez-Castillo, Micah Holness, Megan Spurney, Peter A Bandettini, Daniel A Handwerker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Quality Assurance Strategies for Brain State Characterization by MEMRI.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Processing, evaluating, and understanding FMRI data with afni_proc.py.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

6 authors.

Joshua B TevesSection on Functional Imaging Methods, Laboratory of Brain and Cognition, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Javier Gonzalez-CastilloSection on Functional Imaging Methods, Laboratory of Brain and Cognition, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Micah HolnessSection on Functional Imaging Methods, Laboratory of Brain and Cognition, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Megan SpurneySection on Functional Imaging Methods, Laboratory of Brain and Cognition, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Peter A BandettiniSection on Functional Imaging Methods, Laboratory of Brain and Cognition, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Daniel A HandwerkerSection on Functional Imaging Methods, Laboratory of Brain and Cognition, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.

Funding

Functional MRI Method DevelopmentZIAMH002783 · NIMH · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH · PI BANDETTINI, PETER · 2009 to 2025
$38.4M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Designing and executing a good quality control (QC) process is vital to robust and reproducible science and is often taught through hands on training. As FMRI research trends toward studies with larger sample sizes and highly automated processing pipelines, the people who analyze data are often distinct from those who collect and preprocess the data. While there are good reasons for this trend, it also means that important information about how data were acquired, and their quality, may be missed by those working at later stages of these workflows. Similarly, an abundance of publicly available datasets, where people (not always correctly) assume others already validated data quality, makes it easier for trainees to advance in the field without learning how to identify problematic data. This manuscript is designed as an introduction for researchers who are already familiar with fMRI, but who did not get hands on QC training or who want to think more deeply about QC. This could be someone who has analyzed fMRI data but is planning to personally acquire data for the first time, or someone who regularly uses openly shared data and wants to learn how to better assess data quality. We describe why good QC processes are important, explain key priorities and steps for fMRI QC, and as part of the FMRI Open QC Project, we demonstrate some of these steps by using AFNI software and AFNI's QC reports on an openly shared dataset. A good QC process is context dependent and should address whether data have the potential to answer a scientific question, whether any variation in the data has the potential to skew or hide key results, and whether any problems can potentially be addressed through changes in acquisition or data processing. Automated metrics are essential and can often highlight a possible problem, but human interpretation at every stage of a study is vital for understanding causes and potential solutions.

Indexed as

fMRIGLMneuroimagingnoise removalquality controlreproducibilityresting state

Identifiers

PMID37090794
PMCPMC10117661

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.