ReviewNature protocols2026
Quality assessment and control of unprocessed anatomical, functional and diffusion MRI of the human brain using MRIQC.
Review in Nature protocols, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- What needs to be standardized for reliable, reproducible, and robust tractography?GigaScience · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Quality control (QC) of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data before preprocessing is fundamental, because substandard data are known to introduce additional variability in the form of noise to subsequent analyses. This can result in spurious results of a false effect or the obstruction of a true effect. Consequently, there is a need for a reliable and robust method to identify subpar images, given pre-specified exclusion criteria. Here, we describe how to carry out the visual assessment of T1-weighted, T2-weighted, functional and diffusion MRI scans of the human brain with visual reports generated by MRIQC ( https://mriqc.readthedocs.io/en/stable/ ). We provide guidance and instructions for using the MRIQC software on all the images of the input dataset using typical research settings (i.e., a high-performance computing cluster). This includes installing MRIQC, configuring datasets (30-45 min active, plus 10-15 min of compute time per scan) and executing MRIQC (10-15 min compute time per scan). We then describe how to screen the visual reports generated with MRIQC to identify artifacts and potential quality issues and annotate the latter with the 'rating widget', a utility that enables rapid annotation and minimizes bookkeeping errors (1-5 min per participant). Integrating proper QC checks on the unprocessed data is fundamental to producing reliable statistical results and crucial to identifying faults in the scanning settings, preempting the acquisition of large datasets with persistent artifacts that should have been addressed as they emerged.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42115402What 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.