ArticleThe British journal of radiology2024
Comparison of brain imaging and physical health between research and clinical neuroimaging cohorts of ageing.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association of tailpipe-related and nontailpipe-related air pollution exposure with neuroimaging outcomes.Environmental epidemiology (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2025Article
- Radiological Reporting of Brain Atrophy in MRI: Real-Life Comparison Between Narrative Reports, Semiquantitative Scales and Automated Software-Based Volumetry.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Cumulative anticholinergic exposure and white matter hyperintensity burden in community-dwelling older adults.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare brain MRI measures between Adult Changes in Thought (ACT) participants who underwent research, clinical, or both MRI scans, and clinical health measures across the groups and non-MRI subjects.
methodsRetrospective cohort study leveraging MRI, clinical, demographic, and medication data from ACT. Three neuroradiologists reviewed MRI scans using NIH Neuroimaging Common Data Elements (CDEs). Total brain and white matter hyperintensity (WMH) volumes, clinical characteristics, and outcome measures of brain and overall health were compared between groups. 1166 MRIs were included (77 research, 1043 clinical, and 46 both) and an additional 3146 participants with no MRI were compared.
resultsCompared to the group with research MRI only, the clinical MRI group had higher prevalence of the following: acute infarcts, chronic haematoma, subarachnoid haemorrhage, subdural haemorrhage, haemorrhagic transformation, and hydrocephalus (each P < .001). Quantitative WMH burden was significantly lower (P < .001) and total brain volume significantly higher (P < .001) in research MRI participants compared to other MRI groups. Prevalence of hypertension, self-reported cerebrovascular disease, congestive heart failure, dementia, and recent hospitalization (all P < .001) and diabetes (P = .002) differed significantly across groups, with smaller proportions in the research MRI group.
conclusionIn ageing populations, significant differences were observed in MRI metrics between research MRI and clinical MRI groups, and clinical health metric differences between research MRI, clinical MRI, and no-MRI groups. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This questions whether research cohorts can adequately represent the greater ageing population undergoing imaging. These findings may also be useful to radiologists when interpreting neuroimaging of ageing.
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.