Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42559148›Full record

ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)

Pooling quantitative MRI data: A multi-protocol study of healthy subcortical aging.

Mikhail Zubkov, Kerrin J Pine, Pierre-Louis Bazin, Niklas Kuegler, Puneet Talwar, Nasrin Mortazavi, Solène Dauby, Chloé Geron, Elise Beckers, Laurent Lamalle and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.). 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

18 authors.

Mikhail ZubkovGIGA-Institute, CRC-Human Imaging Unit, University of Liège (ULiège), Liège, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0768-1737
Kerrin J PineDepartment of Neurophysics, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2486-2970
Pierre-Louis BazinFull Brain Picture Analytics, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0141-5510
Niklas KueglerDepartment of Neurophysics, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany.
Puneet TalwarGIGA-Institute, CRC-Human Imaging Unit, University of Liège (ULiège), Liège, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7631-7926
Nasrin MortazaviGIGA-Institute, CRC-Human Imaging Unit, University of Liège (ULiège), Liège, Belgium.
Solène DaubyClinical Neurosciences Lab, GIGA-Institute, CRC-Human Imaging Unit, University of Liège (ULiège), Liège, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5153-8367
Chloé GeronGIGA-Institute, CRC-Human Imaging Unit, University of Liège (ULiège), Liège, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2739-564X
Elise BeckersGIGA-Institute, CRC-Human Imaging Unit, University of Liège (ULiège), Liège, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5523-1741
Laurent LamalleGIGA-Institute, CRC-Human Imaging Unit, University of Liège (ULiège), Liège, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8930-7337
Christophe PhillipsGIGA-Institute, CRC-Human Imaging Unit, University of Liège (ULiège), Liège, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4990-425X
Fabienne ColletteGIGA-Institute, CRC-Human Imaging Unit, University of Liège (ULiège), Liège, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9288-9756
Pierre MaquetGIGA-Institute, CRC-Human Imaging Unit, University of Liège (ULiège), Liège, Belgium.
Emilie LommersClinical Neurosciences Lab, GIGA-Institute, CRC-Human Imaging Unit, University of Liège (ULiège), Liège, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7965-4629
Anneke AlkemadeIntegrative Model-based Cognitive Neuroscience Research Unit, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3234-353X
Nikolaus WeiskopfDepartment of Neurophysics, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5239-1881
Gilles VandewalleGIGA-Institute, CRC-Human Imaging Unit, University of Liège (ULiège), Liège, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2483-2752
Evgeniya KirilinaDepartment of Neurophysics, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1304-4363

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quantitative MRI (qMRI) measures relaxation rates, exchange rates, and proton densities that reflect biophysical properties of tissue and are ideally free from protocol- and scanner-dependence. In practice, qMRI has not yet achieved this level of independence from sequence and hardware choice, and quantitative estimates often differ across sites and acquisition schemes. At the same time, pooling data across different sources can be beneficial to statistical power of longitudinal, cross-sectional, or case-control studies. Here, we investigate how protocol and hardware differences can affect pooling data from different sources in large ultra high field (UHF) qMRI studies in the context of healthy aging. We combine the openly available aging UHF qMRI MP2RAGEME-based dataset with two different multiparameter mapping (MPM)-based sets of qMRI data. We evaluate how pooling affects age dependence of qMRI parameters and investigate protocol-related biases, with a particular focus on subcortical structures. We focus the analysis, first, on replication and expansion of the previously published qMRI dataset on normative aging, second, the examination of the protocol influence on the estimated qMRI values, and third, on detecting the protocol effect on the age dependence inferred from the data. We find that the age-related changes in the pooled dataset for R1 measure around 4-17% of the lifespan mean in different structures. Similarly, age-related R2* variation in different structures constitutes around 6-30% of the lifespan mean in the pooled dataset. Subcortical structure volume change is on the order of 5-26%. We further observe larger relative difference between protocols for R1 and volume, while R2* remains more consistent for most regions. We show how pooling the UHF qMRI data from different sites and collected with different quantitative protocols can be both detrimental and beneficial for the analysis outcomes.

Indexed as

agingmyelinquantitative imagingsegmentationsubcortexultra-high field

Identifiers

PMID42559148
PMCPMC13439991

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.