ArticleCommunications biology2025
Evaluating analytic strategies to obtain high-resolution, vertex-level measures of cortical neuroanatomy in children in low- and middle-income countries.
Article in Communications biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The potential of low-field MRI for global dementia care.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2026Review
- Brain-age in ultra-low-field MRI: How well does it work?Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
- Evaluating analytic strategies to obtain high-resolution, vertex-level measures of cortical neuroanatomy in children in low- and middle-income countries.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Ultra-low-field brain MRI morphometry: Test-retest reliability and correspondence to high-field MRI.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 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
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
High-field magnetic resonance imaging to explore brain structure and function remains limited to high-resource settings. Novel, low-field (<0.1 T) imaging offers a more cost-effective/accessible alternative. However, the validity of low-field data at spatial resolutions relevant to research and clinic (vertex-level) remains unclear. Hence, we examine paired high-field (reference) and low-field (single/multi-orientation scans processed through established/novel pipelines) data (12 children [10-12 yrs] in a low- and middle-income country [LMIC]). We assess high-field/low-field correspondence between vertex-level measures of cortical volume, surface area, and cortical thickness; and compare analytic strategies. High/low-field images show weak-to-moderate global correspondence (cortical volume, surface area: Pearson's r ≤ 0.6, cortical thickness r ≤ 0.3), and weak-to-very strong local correspondence (r ≤ 0.99). Greatest correspondence is achieved with multi-orientation images and a pipeline adjusted for low-resolution images (recon-all-clinical); or image enhancement (SynthSR) plus standard processing (FastSurfer); but agreement varies across brain based on input, analytic strategy, and neuroanatomical feature. We provide an application to interactively explore our results. Thus, low-field imaging can provide reliable, high-resolution estimates of cortical volume and surface area, but not cortical thickness; and analytic approaches should be selected based on multiple considerations. Once validated, this research may help deploy low-field imaging to aid research/evidence-based clinical work in high- and low-resource settings, including LMIC.
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.