Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41282830›Full record

ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025

Automatic detection of simulated artifacts on T1w magnetic resonance images: comparing performance of different QC strategies.

Janine Hendriks, Michelle G Jansen, Richard Joules, Óscar Peña-Nogales, Paulo R Rodrigues, Frederik Barkhof, Anouk Schrantee, Henk J M M Mutsaerts

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Janine HendriksAmsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0004-3871-1825
Michelle G JansenAmsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1244-5715
Richard JoulesIXICO Plc, London, EC1A 9PN, United Kingdom.
Óscar Peña-NogalesQMENTA Inc, 02109, Boston, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7364-9335
Paulo R RodriguesQMENTA Inc, 02109, Boston, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2102-1746
Frederik BarkhofAmsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3543-3706
Anouk SchranteeAmsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4035-4845
Henk J M M MutsaertsAmsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0894-0307

Funding

Project 1U19AG024904 · NIA · NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE/RES/EDU · PI Duygu Tosun-Turgut · 2016 to 2026
$226.7M
NIA NIH HHS U19 AG024904
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The reliability of MRI-derived measures critically depends on image quality. Poor-quality scans can obscure anatomical detail and compromise the accuracy of automated image analysis, underscoring the need for robust quality control (QC) procedures. Automated QC offers scalability for large neuroimaging datasets, yet the comparative performance of different approaches for detecting specific artifact types remains poorly understood. We systematically compared rule-based (RB), classical machine learning (ML), and deep learning (DL) QC algorithms using 1,000 high-quality T1w scans. Four artifact types, blurring, ghosting, motion, and noise were synthetically introduced across ten severity levels using TorchIO, yielding 40,000 degraded images. Visual QC of a subset confirmed strong inter-rater reliability (Krippendorff's α=0.82, mean Spearman's ρ=0.87). RB and ML models used 62 image quality metrics (IQMs) from MRIQC, whereas DL models were trained directly on minimally preprocessed images. Models were trained with participant-level five-fold cross-validation and tested on an independent dataset. DL models achieved the highest overall performance across artifact types (Youden's Index=0.83-0.97). RB and ML performed comparably at high artifact severities (YI≥0.75) but showed limited sensitivity to subtle ghosting and noise (YI≤0.15). Feature analysis indicated that RB relied primarily on normative metrics, whereas ML flexibly adapted feature use by artifact type and severity. These findings highlight DL's superior generalizability for detecting subtle artifacts and provide practical guidance for selecting QC strategies in large-scale neuroimaging pipelines, where reliable QC is essential for maintaining statistical power and reproducibility.

Identifiers

PMID41282830
PMCPMC12636670

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.