ArticleNMR in biomedicine2026
Intra-MRI Head Motion Tracking and Correction: A Quantitative In Vivo Evaluation Framework.
Article in NMR in biomedicine, 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
Despite numerous magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) head motion mitigation strategies, the lack of rigorous evaluation limits their optimization and clinical adoption. We propose an in vivo framework combining a visual instruction system for reproducible head motion with reference standard interpose displacement estimation to assess intra-MRI tracking accuracy and precision. Its utility is demonstrated by comparing a markerless optical system (MOS) and a fat-signal navigator (FatNav). Six participants underwent 3T T1-weighted brain MRI with a FatNav module, performing visually guided 2° and 4° head rotations around the X- and Z-axes using MOS feedback. T1-weighted images were acquired at seven distinct head poses. MOS and FatNav motion estimates were compared against rigid registration of the T1-weighted images, which served as the reference standard. MOS- and FatNav-corrected images for the three successive head rotations were also compared using the structural similarity index measure (SSIM), peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), and a focus measure. FatNav accuracy was inferior for translations (p < 0.001) and 2°-4° rotations but improved to match MOS for subtle pitch
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.