SynthesisNeuroradiology2024
A systematic review of (semi-)automatic quality control of T1-weighted MRI scans.
Synthesis in Neuroradiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- A hybrid Wavelet-EfficientNetV2-Vision transformer framework for multiclass brain tumor MRI classification.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- Validation of five automated structural MRI quality assessment tools against expert ratings.Neuroradiology · 2026Article
- Comparison of observed image quality and technical image quality parameters in 3D-FLAIR images.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Integrating trajectory inference and self-explainable predictive models to explore cell state transitions in breast cancer at single-cell resolution.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Automatic detection of simulated artifacts on T1w magnetic resonance images: comparing performance of different QC strategies.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Easy-to-use and easy-to-interpret quality control of 3D gradient echo T1-weighted MR acquisition sequences for improved test-retest stability of MRI-based hippocampus volumetry.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2025Article
- Analysis of Factors Affecting Quality in Structural Magnetic Resonance Images.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- Article
- Automated quality control of T1-weighted brain MRI scans for clinical research datasets: methods comparison and design of a quality prediction classifier.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- The Advanced BRain Imaging on ageing and Memory (ABRIM) data collection: Study design, data processing, and rationale.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeArtifacts in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans degrade image quality and thus negatively affect the outcome measures of clinical and research scanning. Considering the time-consuming and subjective nature of visual quality control (QC), multiple (semi-)automatic QC algorithms have been developed. This systematic review presents an overview of the available (semi-)automatic QC algorithms and software packages designed for raw, structural T1-weighted (T1w) MRI datasets. The objective of this review was to identify the differences among these algorithms in terms of their features of interest, performance, and benchmarks.
methodsWe queried PubMed, EMBASE (Ovid), and Web of Science databases on the fifth of January 2023, and cross-checked reference lists of retrieved papers. Bias assessment was performed using PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool).
resultsA total of 18 distinct algorithms were identified, demonstrating significant variations in methods, features, datasets, and benchmarks. The algorithms were categorized into rule-based, classical machine learning-based, and deep learning-based approaches. Numerous unique features were defined, which can be roughly divided into features capturing entropy, contrast, and normative measures.
conclusionDue to dataset-specific optimization, it is challenging to draw broad conclusions about comparative performance. Additionally, large variations exist in the used datasets and benchmarks, further hindering direct algorithm comparison. The findings emphasize the need for standardization and comparative studies for advancing QC in MR imaging. Efforts should focus on identifying a dataset-independent measure as well as algorithm-independent methods for assessing the relative performance of different approaches.
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.