ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
On the accuracy of image registration in portable low-field 3D brain MRI.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2026. 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Portable low-field MRI offers an affordable and mobile alternative to conventional high-field scanners, enabling imaging in point-of-care and resource-limited settings. However, its lower signal-to-noise ratio, reduced resolution, and acquisition artifacts raise concerns about the accuracy of standard image registration methods. Reliable registration is critical for a wide range of emerging applications, including frequent brain monitoring, assessment of neurodegenerative disease progression, and evaluation of treatment effects such as those of Alzheimer's therapeutics. In this work, we systematically evaluated state-of-the-art registration approaches on simulated low-field scans (obtained by downsampling high-field images) and on real low-field brain MRI data. We compared three representative approaches: classical optimization (NiftyReg), learning-based registration (SynthMorph), and synthesis-based registration (SynthSR+NiftyReg). Using downsampled high-field scans, all methods performed well, achieving high Dice scores and smooth deformation fields, indicating that reduced resolution alone does not hinder registration. In contrast, real low-field data exhibited lower accuracy, primarily due to geometric distortion and other acquisition-specific artifacts. Among the tested approaches, the synthesis-based pipeline achieved the most robust performance across subjects and modalities. Overall, existing algorithms can accommodate resolution limitations, however, future methods could further enhance coregistration by explicitly addressing the distortions present in low-field MRI scans.
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.