ArticleBMC medical imaging2026
Evaluating the image quality and brain microstructural exploration of mean apparent propagator-MRI-a pilot study.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo investigate the impact of positivity constraints and Laplacian regularization on Mean Apparent Propagator (MAP)-MRI image quality and effectiveness in analyzing brain microstructural changes, validated using an Intermittent Exotropia (IXT) cohort.
methodsA total of 31 patients with IXT (16 males, 15 females; mean age 10.94 ± 1.69 years) and 37 age- and sex-matched healthy controls (23 males, 14 females; mean age 11.14 ± 2.06 years) underwent MRI scans. Imaging protocols included simultaneous multi-slice echo planar imaging (SMS-EPI) for q-space sampling and 3D magnetization-prepared rapid acquisition gradient echo (MP-RAGE) sequences. Three MAP-MRI-based reconstruction algorithms were evaluated: MAPL (with Laplacian regularization), CMAP (positivity-constrained), and CMAPL (combining both constraints). Image quality was assessed objectively using wavelet-based signal-to-noise ratio (WSNR), and subjectively by two radiologists using a 5-point scale rating signal uniformity, contrast, noise level, and anatomical completeness. Statistical analyses included one-way ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and Cohen's κ for inter-rater agreement. Diagnostic performance was evaluated using voxel-wise t-tests with Gaussian Random Field (GRF) correction at P = 0.01.
resultsMAPL outperformed CMAP and CMAPL in both objective and subjective image quality, particularly in RTOP, RTAP, MSD, and QIV maps (all P < 0.05). It also provided a more comprehensive visualization of changes in the bilateral dorsal visual pathways, including BA17, BA18, BA19, BA39, BA40, BA8, BA6, and the supplementary motor area (SMA). Moreover, MAPL demonstrated superior sensitivity in detecting alterations in brain regions associated with language, emotion, and decision-making (BA10, BA11, BA22, BA37, and BA47), which may reflect secondary changes induced by visual impairment.
conclusionsMAPL surpasses CMAP and CMAPL in both image quality and the ability to display brain microstructural changes, establishing it as the superior method for exploring brain structural alterations. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: It was registered on July 18, 2021 (ChiCTR2100048852) at www.chictr.org.cn and commenced on September 1, 2021.
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.