Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38721079›Full record

ReviewJMA journal2024

Human Brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies for Psychiatric Disorders: The Current Progress and Future Directions.

Jennifer Shi, Shinsuke Koike

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMA journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
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

2 authors.

Jennifer ShiDepartment of Molecular Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, USA.
Shinsuke KoikeUniversity of Tokyo Institute for Diversity and Adaptation of Human Mind, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the prevalence of psychiatric disorders and the limitations of the diagnostic scheme and treatment options of these disorders, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies play a significant role in uncovering the pathological basis of psychiatric disorders and potentially using biological markers in clinical settings. The use of MRI in clinical research has grown over the past three decades, and current MRI research continues to provide an avenue to guide the development of diagnostic approaches and therapeutic solutions. However, the current shortcomings of MRI studies derive not only from technical limitations (i.e., the range of contrasts that MRI probes or sensors can create) but also from confounding factors in the current methodological approaches of case-control studies for psychiatric disorders. Thus, by reviewing the recent literature on MRI research on psychiatric disorders, we explain the current progress and limitations of brain MRI methodologies used to study psychiatric disorders. We consider the growing use of cross-disorder methods to identify shared and disease-specific pathological features across psychiatric disorders. In addition, we need to outline healthy developmental and aging changes of the brain and investigate the disorder difference as a deviation of the trajectory. Although these methods have provided us with new insights, the demarcation between psychiatric disorders based on a definitive set of pathologies remains limited. This challenge of disease stratification is further complicated by the presence of multiple different sets of disorder pathologies

Indexed as

cross-disorder studyharmonizationMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI)psychiatric disordersschizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID38721079
PMCPMC11074512

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.