Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42371333›Full record

ArticleMagma (New York, N.Y.)2026

An evaluation of brain volume and cortical thickness measurement at 0.55 T.

Anand A Joshi, Sophia X Cui, Chin-Cheng Chan, Hao-Ting Kung, Jonas T Kaplan, Krishna S Nayak, Richard M Leahy, Justin P Haldar

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Magma (New York, N.Y.), 2026. 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.

Anand A JoshiSignal and Image Processing Institute, Ming Hsieh Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, 3740 McClintock Ave, EEB 426, Los Angeles, CA, 90089, USA. ajoshi@usc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9582-3848
Sophia X CuiSiemens Medical Solutions USA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Chin-Cheng ChanSignal and Image Processing Institute, Ming Hsieh Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, 3740 McClintock Ave, EEB 426, Los Angeles, CA, 90089, USA.
Hao-Ting KungSignal and Image Processing Institute, Ming Hsieh Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, 3740 McClintock Ave, EEB 426, Los Angeles, CA, 90089, USA.
Jonas T KaplanBrain and Creativity Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Krishna S NayakSignal and Image Processing Institute, Ming Hsieh Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, 3740 McClintock Ave, EEB 426, Los Angeles, CA, 90089, USA.
Richard M LeahySignal and Image Processing Institute, Ming Hsieh Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, 3740 McClintock Ave, EEB 426, Los Angeles, CA, 90089, USA.
Justin P HaldarSignal and Image Processing Institute, Ming Hsieh Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, 3740 McClintock Ave, EEB 426, Los Angeles, CA, 90089, USA.

Funding

National Science Foundation CNS-1828736NIH HHS R56-EB034349U.S. Department of Defense HT94252310149
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo determine the feasibility of anatomical neuroimaging studies using 0.55 T MRI.

methodsMPRAGE images with 1 mm isotropic resolution were acquired from a cohort of five healthy subjects using both 0.55 T and 3 T scanners, including repeat scans of each subject at each field strength. The 0.55 T images were denoised to mitigate the effects of high resolution and low-field strength. All scans were analyzed using BrainSuite and FreeSurfer image analysis software, which performs operations including tissue classification, region segmentation/labeling, and thickness/volume measurements for different brain regions. Regional cortical thickness measurements and regional brain volume measurements were compared, and test-retest repeatability at each field strength was evaluated.

resultsFor both image analysis software tools, we observed reasonably good correlations between field strengths for cortical thickness measures and regional brain volume measures. Test-retest repeatability analysis suggests that experimental variability was generally higher at 0.55 T than at 3 T, although the amount of difference was dependent on the specific measure being considered and the software tool that was used.

conclusionWhile our sample size was small which limits the strength of the conclusions we can draw, this small-scale pilot study suggests the potential feasibility of certain types of anatomical neuroimaging studies at 0.55 T (especially those involving volume measurements), assuming that appropriate adjustments are made to account for increased experimental variability at this field strength.

Indexed as

0.55 T MRIBrain image analysisCortical thicknessRegional brain volume

Identifiers

PMID42371333

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.