ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Using Propensity Score Matching to Control for MRI Scan Quality.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Movement during MRI scanning complicates distinguishing between the different tissues in the brain (e.g., grey and white matter). Standard practice excludes scans based on researcher-determined visual quality thresholds. Unfortunately, children, elderly, and clinical populations are shown to move more, resulting in higher exclusion rates. This disproportionate exclusion creates systematic bias in the literature and makes research findings less generalizable. Furthermore, the artifacts caused by motion are demonstrated to continue to confound data, even after visual quality control has occurred. We aimed to minimize the confounding factor of systematic group differences in movement. To achieve this, we used a post-scanning statistical technique called propensity score matching (PSM) that matches control and patient populations on scan quality metrics, leading to more comparable groups, greater inclusion, and more generalizable results. We found that PSM can attenuate significant differences in scan quality between groups while allowing for greater sample diversity than standard exclusion protocols. Crucially, using PSM can also alter the results of neuroimaging-based analyses. Using three datasets (total n = 1536), we compared voxel based morphometry analyses based on different quality control protocols. In particular, we observed discrepant results between PSM and strict threshold exclusion, with PSM magnifying some regional group differences and diminishing others. Overall, PSM is a customizable way to mitigate the impact of confounds in neuroimaging research and a powerful method to help distinguish true effects from artifacts.
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.