ArticleInterface focus2025
Dynamic visualization of brain pulsations using amplified MRI: methodology and applications.
Article in Interface focus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Non-Invasive Multidimensional Capacitive Sensing for In Vivo Traumatic Brain Injury Monitoring.Advanced materials technologies · 2026Article
- Pulsatile Brain Motion as a Marker of Brain Aging and Dementia: Insights from 3D q-aMRI.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brain pulsatility offers a compelling application in the study of cerebral biomechanics, particularly for mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and elevated intracranial pressure (ICP). In this study, we used amplified MRI to quantify brain tissue pulsations. Dynamic mode decomposition (DMD) processing was then applied to provide a spatio-temporal analysis of motion. Four distinct use cases were examined: (i) resting versus exertion-induced heart rate changes, (ii) pre- and post-lumbar puncture (LP), (iii) baseline versus post-brain injury, and (iv) a test-retest case. Results demonstrate that brain tissue motion varies significantly across conditions, with DMD revealing distinct modes and frequencies corresponding to physiological changes. Notably, mTBI showed an increase in pulsatile motion post-injury, while elevated ICP exhibited altered pulsatility patterns post-LP, indicating a potential biomarker for injury and pressure-related changes. This approach offers new insights into physiological and pathological brain pulsatility; however, the study's limited sample size, reliance on retrospective gating and assumptions regarding pulsatile motion highlight the need for larger and more diverse cohorts to confirm these findings. Despite these limitations, our results suggest our dynamical analysis approach could become a valuable tool for assessing intracranial dynamics, with applications in clinical diagnostics and research on neurovascular and neurological conditions.
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.