ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2025
Multi-echo versus single-echo EPI sequences for task-fMRI: A comparative study.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Precision Imaging for Intraindividual Investigation of the Reward Response.Human brain mapping · 2026Article
- Neural compensation through dorsal stream involvement in visual word recognition under perceptual degradation in a transparent language: evidence from fMRI.Behavioral and brain functions : BBF · 2026Article
- An evaluation of the efficacy of single-echo and multi-echo fMRI denoising strategies.Network neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
- Functional, Structural, and AI-Based MRI Analysis: A Comprehensive Review of Recent Advances.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Precision Imaging for Intraindividual Investigation of the Reward Response.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies in cognitive and clinical neuroscience rely on blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) contrast, measured with single-shot gradient-echo-planar imaging. However, conventional schemes encompass the acquisition of single-echo fMRI, which samples a single echo at a single-echo time (TE), facing limitations in disentangling neural signals from artifacts. Multi-echo (ME) fMRI captures images at multiple echo times within a single repetition time (TR) period and enables the separation of BOLD and non-BOLD signal components. Previous studies have highlighted the benefits of ME-fMRI but often relied on comparisons with suboptimal single-echo data derived from ME acquisitions, limiting the validity of these evaluations. This study performs a more rigorous comparison between three datasets: the data acquired with an optimized single-echo (OSE) fMRI sequence at the highest possible temporal resolution, those acquired with an ME-fMRI sequence, and, as previously reported in the literature, the echo-2 time-series extracted from the ME-fMRI data itself. ME-fMRI
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.