ReviewMagma (New York, N.Y.)2025
Rethinking MRI as a measurement device through modular and portable pipelines.
Review 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 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.
- An Open-Source, Reproducible MRI Data Acquisition and Reconstruction Workflow Using Pulseq: Multi-Site and Cross-Vendor Validation.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The premise of MRI as a reliable measurement device is limited by proprietary barriers and inconsistent implementations, which prevent the establishment of measurement uncertainties. As a result, biomedical studies that rely on these methods are plagued by systematic variance, undermining the perceived promise of quantitative imaging biomarkers (QIBs) and hindering their clinical translation. This review explores the added value of open-source measurement pipelines in minimizing variability sources that would otherwise remain unknown. First, we introduce a tiered benchmarking framework (from black-box to glass-box) that exposes how opacity at different workflow stages propagates measurement uncertainty. Second, we provide a concise glossary to promote consistent terminology for strategies that enhance reproducibility before acquisition or enable valid post-hoc pooling of QIBs. Building on this foundation, we present two illustrative measurement workflows that decouple workflow logic from the orchestration of computational processes in an MRI measurement pipeline, rooted in the core principles of modularity and portability. Designed as accessible entry points for implementation, these examples serve as practical guides, helping users adapt the frameworks to their specific needs and facilitating collaboration. Through critical evaluation of existing approaches, we discuss how standardized workflows can help identify outstanding challenges in translating glass-box frameworks into clinical scanner environments. Ultimately, achieving this goal will require coordinated efforts from QIB developers, regulators, industry partners, and clinicians alike.
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.