ReviewJournal of imaging2025
A Structured Review and Quantitative Profiling of Public Brain MRI Datasets for Foundation Model Development.
Review in Journal of imaging, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The development of foundation models for brain MRI depends critically on the scale, diversity, and consistency of available data, yet systematic assessments of these factors remain scarce. In this study, we analyze 54 publicly accessible brain MRI datasets encompassing over 538,031 scans to provide a structured, multi-level overview tailored to foundation model development. At the dataset level, we characterize modality composition, disease coverage, and dataset scale, revealing strong imbalances between large healthy cohorts and smaller clinical populations. At the image level, we quantify voxel spacing, orientation, and intensity distributions across 14 representative datasets, demonstrating substantial heterogeneity that can influence representation learning. We then perform a quantitative evaluation of preprocessing variability, examining how intensity normalization, bias field correction, skull stripping, spatial registration, and interpolation alter voxel statistics and geometry. While these steps improve within-dataset consistency, residual differences persist between datasets. Finally, a feature-space case study using a 3D DenseNet121 shows measurable residual covariate shift after standardized preprocessing, confirming that harmonization alone cannot eliminate inter-dataset bias. Together, these analyses provide a unified characterization of variability in public brain MRI resources and emphasize the need for preprocessing-aware and domain-adaptive strategies in the design of generalizable brain MRI foundation models.
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.