ArticleNeuroImage2023
A systematic comparison of VBM pipelines and their application to age prediction.
Article in NeuroImage, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fifteen years on: a review of the Cam-CAN study of the cognitive neuroscience of ageing.GeroScience · 2026Review
- Cholinergic degeneration in prodromal and early Parkinson's disease: a link to present and future disease states.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2026Article
- Investigating gray matter volumes in idiopathic epileptic Border Collies and Greater Swiss Mountain Dogs using voxel-based morphometry.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Comparing deep learning CNN method with traditional MRI-based hippocampal segmentation and volumetry for early Alzheimer's disease diagnosis across diverse populations.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Calibration of MRI-based reference intervals to new samples.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Choice of Processing Pipelines for T1-Weighted Brain MRI Impacts Association and Prediction Analyses.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- Reducing Inter-Individual Differences in Task fMRI Preprocessing with OGRE (One-Step General Registration and Extraction) Preprocessing.Neuroinformatics · 2025Article
- A Case for Automated Segmentation of MRI Data in Neurodegenerative Diseases: Type II GM1 Gangliosidosis.NeuroSci · 2025Article
- Macro- and Microstructural Alterations in the Midbrain in Early Psychosis Associates with Clinical Symptom Scores.eNeuro · 2025Article
- Neuroanatomical Insights: Convergence and Divergence of Tinnitus with Normal or Mild Hearing Loss.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Relationships of eating behaviors with psychopathology, brain maturation and genetic risk for obesity in an adolescent cohort study.Nature. Mental health · 2025Article
- Pipeline variability: Friend or foe, depending on the goal: Comment on Germani et al. 2025.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Magnetoencephalography Atlas Viewer for Dipole Localization and Viewing.Journal of imaging · 2024Article
- Unique Brain Network Identification Number for Parkinson's and Healthy Individuals Using Structural MRI.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Calibration of MRI-based reference intervals to new samples.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Voxel-based morphometry (VBM) analysis is commonly used for localized quantification of gray matter volume (GMV). Several alternatives exist to implement a VBM pipeline. However, how these alternatives compare and their utility in applications, such as the estimation of aging effects, remain largely unclear. This leaves researchers wondering which VBM pipeline they should use for their project. In this study, we took a user-centric perspective and systematically compared five VBM pipelines, together with registration to either a general or a study-specific template, utilizing three large datasets (n>500 each). Considering the known effect of aging on GMV, we first compared the pipelines in their ability of individual-level age prediction and found markedly varied results. To examine whether these results arise from systematic differences between the pipelines, we classified them based on their GMVs, resulting in near-perfect accuracy. To gain deeper insights, we examined the impact of different VBM steps using the region-wise similarity between pipelines. The results revealed marked differences, largely driven by segmentation and registration steps. We observed large variability in subject-identification accuracies, highlighting the interpipeline differences in individual-level quantification of GMV. As a biologically meaningful criterion we correlated regional GMV with age. The results were in line with the age-prediction analysis, and two pipelines, CAT and the combination of fMRIPrep for tissue characterization with FSL for registration, reflected age information better.
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.