ArticleJournal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD2025
Easy-to-use and easy-to-interpret quality control of 3D gradient echo T1-weighted MR acquisition sequences for improved test-retest stability of MRI-based hippocampus volumetry.
Article in Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundMRI-based hippocampus volume (HV) is widely used as neurodegeneration marker in Alzheimer's disease.ObjectiveAn easy-to-use and easy-to-interpret method to categorize T1-weighted MR sequences with respect to test-retest stability of hippocampus volumetry based on general image quality metrics (IQM).MethodsThe study included 446 3D T1-weighted MRI scans of one healthy middle-aged man obtained during 32 months in 122 scanning sessions performed with 96 different scanners at 76 different sites. Each scanning session represented a different acquisition sequence of ≥2 back-to-back repeat scans (3.7 ± 0.7 on average). Unilateral HVs were determined with 18 different tools for automatic volumetry. An acquisition sequence was considered "poor" if the z-score of the within-session coefficient-of-variation of the HV estimates from the session, averaged across all volumetry tools and both hemispheres, exceeded one standard deviation. General IQM were computed for each scanning session using the freely available MRI Quality Control Tool. A classification-and-regression tree (CART) was trained to discriminate between good and poor acquisition sequences using the IQM as input.ResultsThe CART selected the left-right width of the acquisition field-of-view and the contrast-to-noise ratio as predictor variables. Overall accuracy of the CART was 79.5%. CART-based classification increased the ratio of good-to-poor acquisition sequences from 3.5 among all sequences to 7.4 among the sequences predicted to be good. This was at the expense of losing 15% of the good sequences.ConclusionsThe IQM-based decision tree model provides useful performance for the differentiation of T1-weighted sequences associated with good versus poor test-retest stability of hippocampus volumetry.
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.