Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38047983›Full record

SynthesisNeuroradiology2024

A systematic review of (semi-)automatic quality control of T1-weighted MRI scans.

Janine Hendriks, Henk-Jan Mutsaerts, Richard Joules, Óscar Peña-Nogales, Paulo R Rodrigues, Robin Wolz, George L Burchell, Frederik Barkhof, Anouk Schrantee

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors.

Janine HendriksDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, PK -1, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, The Netherlands. j.m.hendriks@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-3871-1825
Henk-Jan MutsaertsDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, PK -1, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0894-0307
Richard JoulesIXICO Plc, London, EC1A 9PN, UK.
Óscar Peña-NogalesQMENTA, Barcelona, 08009, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7364-9335
Paulo R RodriguesQMENTA, Barcelona, 08009, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2102-1746
Robin WolzIXICO Plc, London, EC1A 9PN, UK.
George L BurchellMedical Library, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6281-4179
Frederik BarkhofDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, PK -1, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3543-3706
Anouk SchranteeDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, Amsterdam, 1105 AZ, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4035-4845

Funding

Health Holland 2011227
6 · The paper itself

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

Image Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingAlgorithmsHumansMachine LearningQuality ControlDeep learningMachine learningQuality controlRule-based learningStructural MRISystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38047983
PMCPMC10761394

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.