ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2024
Automated quality control of small animal MR neuroimaging data.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2024. 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.
- Humanized APOE mouse brain volume increases over age irrespective of sex and APOE genotype: implications for translational validity to the human.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Humanized APOE mouse brain volume increases over age irrespective of sex and APOE genotype: Implications for translational validity to the human.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 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
46 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a valuable tool for studying brain structure and function in animal and clinical studies. With the growth of public MRI repositories, access to data has finally become easier. However, filtering large datasets for potential poor-quality outliers can be a challenge. We present AIDAqc, a machine-learning-assisted automated Python-based command-line tool for small animal MRI quality assessment. Quality control features include signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), temporal SNR, and motion. All features are automatically calculated and no regions of interest are needed. Automated outlier detection for a given dataset combines the interquartile range and the machine-learning methods one-class support vector machine, isolation forest, local outlier factor, and elliptic envelope. To evaluate the reliability of individual quality control metrics, a simulation of noise (Gaussian, salt and pepper, speckle) and motion was performed. In outlier detection, single scans with induced artifacts were successfully identified by AIDAqc. AIDAqc was challenged in a large heterogeneous dataset collected from 19 international laboratories, including data from mice, rats, rabbits, hamsters, and gerbils, obtained with different hardware and at different field strengths. The results show that the manual inter-rater agreement (mean Fleiss Kappa score 0.17) is low when identifying poor-quality data. A direct comparison of AIDAqc results, therefore, showed only low-to-moderate concordance. In a manual post hoc validation of AIDAqc output, precision was high (>70%). The outlier data can have a significant impact on further postprocessing, as shown in representative functional and structural connectivity analysis. In summary, this pipeline optimized for small animal MRI provides researchers with a valuable tool to efficiently and effectively assess the quality of their MRI data, which is essential for improved reliability and reproducibility.
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.