Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42872790›Full record

ArticleDialogues in clinical neuroscience2027

Nine minutes is enough: An accelerated fMRI protocol for reliable connectivity mapping in healthy young adults.

Adrian Falkowski, Krzysztof Szwed

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 2027. 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

2 authors.

Adrian FalkowskiFaculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland.
Krzysztof SzwedFaculty of Medicine, Bydgoszcz University of Science and Technology, Bydgoszcz, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionResting‑state fMRI is widely used to map brain connectivity, yet the field lacks a clear, data‑driven standard for acquisition duration. We compared traditional Single‑Band (SB) imaging with an accelerated Multiband factor 4 (MB4) protocol to identify a time‑efficient approach for capturing stable network topology.

methodsTwenty‑five healthy young adults completed two sessions one month apart, each including counterbalanced 13‑minute SB and MB4 scans. Test-retest reliability was evaluated across multiple durations using Portrait Divergence, a multiscale graph‑theoretic metric. Supplementary analyses compared Portrait Divergence with the field-standard Intraclass Correlation Coefficient, assessed robustness across preprocessing pipelines and parcellation schemes, and examined MB4's ability to capture both cortical and subcortical connectivity.

resultsMB4 consistently outperformed SB across all tested durations, with peak topological stability at 9 minutes. Stability declined beyond this point, likely due to cumulative motion artefacts. Supplementary analyses confirmed MB4's robustness across preprocessing strategies and atlas choices and demonstrated effective whole‑brain coverage.

conclusionsIn healthy young adults, MB4 captures network topology more effectively than SB and reaches peak stability at 9 minutes before declining, challenging the assumption that longer scans are always better. These findings require validation in clinical, paediatric, and geriatric cohorts.

Indexed as

BrainBrain MappingMagnetic Resonance ImagingNerve NetAdultFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleReproducibility of ResultsTime FactorsYoung Adultbrain connectivityfMRIgraph theoryMultibandResting-Statetopological stability

Identifiers

PMID42872790
PMCPMC13670261

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.