Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37214404›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2023

Quality control in resting-state fMRI: the benefits of visual inspection.

Rebecca J Lepping, Hung-Wen Yeh, Brent C McPherson, Morgan G Brucks, Mohammad Sabati, Rainer T Karcher, William M Brooks, Joshua D Habiger, Vlad B Papa, Laura E Martin

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 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  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. Processing, evaluating, and understanding FMRI data with afni_proc.py.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

10 authors.

Rebecca J LeppingDepartment of Neurology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, United States.
Hung-Wen YehDivision of Health Services and Outcomes Research, Department of Pediatrics, Children's Mercy Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, United States.
Brent C McPhersonDepartment of Neurology and Neurosurgery, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Morgan G BrucksHoglund Biomedical Imaging Center, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, United States.
Mohammad SabatiHoglund Biomedical Imaging Center, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, United States.
Rainer T KarcherHoglund Biomedical Imaging Center, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, United States.
William M BrooksDepartment of Neurology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, United States.
Joshua D HabigerDepartment of Statistics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, United States.
Vlad B PapaHoglund Biomedical Imaging Center, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, United States.
Laura E MartinHoglund Biomedical Imaging Center, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: A variety of quality control (QC) approaches are employed in resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI) to determine data quality and ultimately inclusion or exclusion of a fMRI data set in group analysis. Reliability of rs-fMRI data can be improved by censoring or "scrubbing" volumes affected by motion. While censoring preserves the integrity of participant-level data, including excessively censored data sets in group analyses may add noise. Quantitative motion-related metrics are frequently reported in the literature; however, qualitative visual inspection can sometimes catch errors or other issues that may be missed by quantitative metrics alone. In this paper, we describe our methods for performing QC of rs-fMRI data using software-generated quantitative and qualitative output and trained visual inspection. Results: The data provided for this QC paper had relatively low motion-censoring, thus quantitative QC resulted in no exclusions. Qualitative checks of the data resulted in limited exclusions due to potential incidental findings and failed pre-processing scripts. Conclusion: Visual inspection in addition to the review of quantitative QC metrics is an important component to ensure high quality and accuracy in rs-fMRI data analysis.

Indexed as

artifactsfunctional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)quality controlreproducibility of resultsresting state—fMRI

Identifiers

PMID37214404
PMCPMC10192849

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.