ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2024
Reproducibility of arterial spin labeling cerebral blood flow image processing: A report of the ISMRM open science initiative for perfusion imaging (OSIPI) and the ASL MRI challenge.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 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.
- Cerebrovascular autoregulation in hypoxia: quantitative insights from arterial spin labeling.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Review
- Multi-cohort, multi-sequence harmonisation for cerebrovascular brain age.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Reproducibility of arterial spin labeling cerebral blood flow image processing: A report of the ISMRM open science initiative for perfusion imaging (OSIPI) and the ASL MRI challenge.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 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
26 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeArterial spin labeling (ASL) is a widely used contrast-free MRI method for assessing cerebral blood flow (CBF). Despite the generally adopted ASL acquisition guidelines, there is still wide variability in ASL analysis. We explored this variability through the ISMRM-OSIPI ASL-MRI Challenge, aiming to establish best practices for more reproducible ASL analysis.
methodsEight teams analyzed the challenge data, which included a high-resolution T1-weighted anatomical image and 10 pseudo-continuous ASL datasets simulated using a digital reference object to generate ground-truth CBF values in normal and pathological states. We compared the accuracy of CBF quantification from each team's analysis to the ground truth across all voxels and within predefined brain regions. Reproducibility of CBF across analysis pipelines was assessed using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), limits of agreement (LOA), and replicability of generating similar CBF estimates from different processing approaches.
resultsAbsolute errors in CBF estimates compared to ground-truth synthetic data ranged from 18.36 to 48.12 mL/100 g/min. Realistic motion incorporated into three datasets produced the largest absolute error and variability between teams, with the least agreement (ICC and LOA) with ground-truth results. Fifty percent of the submissions were replicated, and one produced three times larger CBF errors (46.59 mL/100 g/min) compared to submitted results.
conclusionsVariability in CBF measurements, influenced by differences in image processing, especially to compensate for motion, highlights the significance of standardizing ASL analysis workflows. We provide a recommendation for ASL processing based on top-performing approaches as a step toward ASL standardization.
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.