ArticleMagma (New York, N.Y.)2025
Comparing repeatability metrics for quantitative susceptibility mapping in the head and neck.
Article in Magma (New York, N.Y.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reproducibility and quality assurance in MRI.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveQuantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) is a technique that has been demonstrated to be highly repeatable in the brain. As QSM is applied to other parts of the body, it is necessary to investigate metrics for quantifying repeatability, to enable optimization of repeatable QSM reconstruction pipelines beyond the brain. MATERIALS AND
methodsMRI data were acquired in the head and neck (HN) region in ten healthy volunteers, who underwent six acquisitions across two sessions. QSMs were reconstructed using six representative state-of-the-art techniques. Repeatability of the susceptibility values was compared using voxel-wise metrics (normalized root mean squared error and XSIM) and ROI-based metrics (within-subject and between-subject standard deviation, coefficient of variation (CV), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)).
resultsBoth within-subject and between-subject variations were smaller than the variation between QSM dipole inversion methods, in most ROIs. autoNDI produced the most repeatable susceptibility values, with ICC > 0.75 in three of six HN ROIs with an average ICC of 0.66 across all ROIs. Joint consideration of standard deviation and ICC offered the best metric of repeatability for comparisons between QSM methods, given typical distributions of positive and negative QSM values. DISCUSSION: Repeatability of QSM in the HN region is highly dependent on the dipole inversion method chosen, but the most repeatable methods (autoNDI, QSMnet, TFI) are only moderately repeatable in most HN ROIs.
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.