ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2023
The impact of quality control on cortical morphometry comparisons in autism.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2023. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Molecular, cellular and network mapping of brain structural deviations in patients with Post-COVID19 syndrome.Brain, behavior, & immunity - health · 2026Article
- Test-retest reliability of FreeSurfer measures of neurodegeneration.NeuroImage · 2026Article
- Genetic insights on the mechanisms of human cortical folding.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Subgrouping autism and ADHD based on structural MRI population modelling centiles.Molecular autism · 2025Article
- Combinations of multimodal neuroimaging biomarkers and cognitive test scores to identify patients with cognitive impairment.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2025Article
- A (sub)field guide to quality control in hippocampal subfield segmentation on high-resolution THuman brain mapping · 2024Review
- Automated quality control of small animal MR neuroimaging data.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- Brain-charting autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder reveals distinct and overlapping neurobiology.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2023Article
- Brain Growth Charts for Quantitative Analysis of Pediatric Clinical Brain MRI Scans with Limited Imaging Pathology.Radiology · 2023Article
- Structural brain differences in professional Australian rules footballers following mild traumatic brain injury: When head size matters.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 8 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) quality is known to impact and bias neuroanatomical estimates and downstream analysis, including case-control comparisons, and a growing body of work has demonstrated the importance of careful quality control (QC) and evaluated the impact of image and image-processing quality. However, the growing size of typical neuroimaging datasets presents an additional challenge to QC, which is typically extremely time and labour intensive. One of the most important aspects of MRI quality is the accuracy of processed outputs, which have been shown to impact estimated neurodevelopmental trajectories. Here, we evaluate whether the quality of surface reconstructions by FreeSurfer (one of the most widely used MRI processing pipelines) interacts with clinical and demographic factors. We present a tool, FSQC, that enables quick and efficient yet thorough assessment of outputs of the FreeSurfer processing pipeline. We validate our method against other existing QC metrics, including the automated FreeSurfer Euler number, two other manual ratings of raw image quality, and two popular automated QC methods. We show strikingly similar spatial patterns in the relationship between each QC measure and cortical thickness; relationships for cortical volume and surface area are largely consistent across metrics, though with some notable differences. We next demonstrate that thresholding by QC score attenuates but does not eliminate the impact of quality on cortical estimates. Finally, we explore different ways of controlling for quality when examining differences between autistic individuals and neurotypical controls in the Autism Brain Imaging Data Exchange (ABIDE) dataset, demonstrating that inadequate control for quality can alter results of case-control comparisons.
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.