Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40567565›Full record

ArticleNeuroimage. Reports2022

Cortical thickness in brain imaging studies using FreeSurfer and CAT12: A matter of reproducibility.

Maria de Fátima Machado Dias, Paulo Carvalho, Miguel Castelo-Branco, João Valente Duarte

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroimage. Reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Post mortem cadaveric and imaging mapping analysis of the influence of cochlear implants on cMRI assessment regarding implant positioning and artifact formation.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Implementing ABCD studyMethodsX · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Maria de Fátima Machado DiasCIBIT, ICNAS, University of Coimbra, Portugal.
Paulo CarvalhoCISUC, Faculty of Sciences and Technology, University of Coimbra, Portugal.
Miguel Castelo-BrancoCIBIT, ICNAS, University of Coimbra, Portugal.
João Valente DuarteCIBIT, ICNAS, University of Coimbra, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A reproducibility crisis has been reported across many research fields, including neuroimaging, reaching up to 70% of studies. Neuroimaging data, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), requires pre-processing to allow for inter-subject comparison, increase signal contrast and noise reduction. As manual MRI pre-processing is time consuming and requires expertise, multiple automatic pre-processing frameworks have been proposed. However, neuroimaging studies often report divergent results, even for similar populations, thus it is important to determine whether this occurs as a result of different processing tools. Two of the most used tools are FreeSurfer and the Computational Anatomy Toolbox (CAT12). In this study we assessed the reproducibility between these two automatic pre-processing frameworks for structural MRI and test-retest reliability within framework on estimation of cortical thickness. Our results show that the reproducibility between the frameworks is lower at the region-of-interest (ROI) level than at individual level. Furthermore, we found that the reproducibility was lower in paediatric samples than in adults. Finally, an acquisition site effect was also identified. Given the widespread use of these frameworks in basic and clinical neuroscience, the results of multicentric cross-sectional studies must be interpreted with caution, particularly with paediatric samples. The observed reproducibility issue might be one of the sources of discrepancies reported in neuroimaging studies. On a positive note, framework test-retest reliability within subject is high, suggesting that inconsistency of results may be less concerning in longitudinal studies. The code is available at: https://cibit-uc.github.io/fs-cat12-cortical-thickness-reproducibility.

Identifiers

PMID40567565
PMCPMC12172744

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.