ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Excessive Censoring Degrades Individual-Specific Cortical Parcellations and Personalized TMS Targets.
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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Head motion systematically biases functional connectivity (FC) estimates in resting-state functional MRI (rs-fMRI). A common mitigation strategy is to censor high-motion volumes and discard high-motion runs. However, overly stringent censoring risks discarding signal alongside noise, potentially degrading FC estimates. Here, we test the efficacy of various censoring strategies on individual-specific cortical parcellations and personalized transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) target selection. Using precision-fMRI datasets comprising 50 individuals, we define individualized "ground-truth" references from ≥1 hour of low-motion data per participant. We then simulate 10-min or 20-min rs-fMRI sessions with varying motion levels from the remaining data, yielding final samples of 22 and 19 participants, respectively. Higher motion produces parcellations and TMS targets that deviate further from the ground-truth references. However, at any given motion level, lenient censoring produces higher quality parcellations and personalized TMS targets than strict censoring. The improvement is comparable to doubling scan duration from 20 to 40 min under strict censoring. With personalized connectome-guided TMS, a common dilemma is whether to rescan patients with only high-motion runs. A mixed-motion session with one low-motion run and one high-motion run may often be considered usable after discarding the high-motion run and strict censoring. We find that lenient censoring of high-motion-only sessions yields TMS targets comparable to - or even better than - those derived from strictly censored mixed-motion sessions. Therefore, within the motion range and parcellation/TMS targeting frameworks evaluated here, patients may not need to be re-scanned solely because all runs exceed strict censoring criteria.
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.