ReviewFrontiers in neurology2026
Thalamic quantitative susceptibility mapping and susceptibility source separation: a critical narrative review of evidence and interpretation.
Review in Frontiers in neurology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) measures net tissue magnetic susceptibility, which can conceal coexisting contributions of opposite sign. This is relevant to the thalamus, where nuclei differ in cellular composition, myelinated fibers, and susceptibility contrast. This narrative review evaluates what QSM and magnetic susceptibility source separation, including χ-separation, currently establish about thalamic alterations in aging and neurological disease. The synthesis prioritizes human thalamic evidence and distinguishes it from methodological validation, findings outside the thalamus, and animal experiments. We use paramagnetic component susceptibility (PCS) and diamagnetic component susceptibility (DCS) as the principal notation, with PCS nonnegative and DCS nonpositive. These model-derived components describe magnetic behavior and do not independently identify iron, myelin, calcium, amyloid, or tau. Reduced thalamic bulk susceptibility is repeatedly reported in multiple sclerosis, whereas findings in Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease are less consistent. Differences in acquisition, referencing, segmentation, cohort composition, and treatment of atrophy affect interpretation, although methodological variability does not explain every disagreement. Source separation can provide information concealed by net susceptibility, but depends on relaxation modeling, acquisition conditions, and reconstruction assumptions. Evidence for thalamic protein mapping, calcification of characterization, and treatment monitoring remains limited or indirect. PCS and DCS are research measurements with potential biological interpretability; standardized acquisition and processing, independent tissue validation, longitudinal replication, and clinically useful decision thresholds are required before they can be regarded as validated clinical biomarkers.
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.