Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42898350›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2026

A practical framework for large-scale neuroimaging data collection in clinically diverse populations: experience from the Stanford Brain Stimulation Lab.

Azeezat Azeez, Ethan Makarewycz, Natalie Feng, Wiebke Struckmann, Jen Lissemore, Noriah D Johnson, Malvika Sridhar, Andrew Geoly, Ruben Krueger, Brendan Wong and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2026. 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

16 authors.

Azeezat AzeezBrain Stimulation Lab, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States.
Ethan MakarewyczBrain Stimulation Lab, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States.
Natalie FengBrain Stimulation Lab, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States.
Wiebke StruckmannBrain Stimulation Lab, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States.
Jen LissemoreBrain Stimulation Lab, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States.
Noriah D JohnsonBrain Stimulation Lab, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States.
Malvika SridharBrain Stimulation Lab, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States.
Andrew GeolyBrain Stimulation Lab, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States.
Ruben KruegerBrain Stimulation Lab, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States.
Brendan WongBrain Stimulation Lab, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States.
Seigo NinomiyaBrain Stimulation Lab, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States.
Lauren CroweBrain Stimulation Lab, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States.
Derrick Matthew BuchananBrain Stimulation Lab, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States.
Sumaiya AhmedBrain Stimulation Lab, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States.
Cammie RolleBrain Stimulation Lab, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States.
Nolan WilliamsBrain Stimulation Lab, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States.

Funding

Utilizing changes in human brain connectivity to establish a dose-response relationship involved in the therapeutic actions of prefrontal brain stimulation on depression symptomsR01MH122754 · NIMH · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI WILLIAMS, NOLAN R. · 2020 to 2024
$2.7M
A Preliminary Investigation of Pre-Frontal repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) for the Treatment of Cannabis Use DisorderK23DA043628 · NIDA · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI SAHLEM, GREGORY · 2017 to 2022
$933k
NIDA NIH HHS K23 DA043628NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH122754Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Novel neuroimaging technologies and data science techniques have allowed for large-scale applications of neuroimaging acquisition in clinical research, particularly within the fields of interventional psychiatry, neuropsychiatry, and precision medicine. These developments have enhanced our understanding of psychiatric and neurological disorders and highlight the need for optimized protocols that support scalable, high-quality neuroimaging data acquisition. This paper aims to describe a protocol for systematic MRI data collection in clinical trials, including details for subject recruitment, meticulous equipment calibration, rigorous real-time quality control of imaging data, standardized documentation (SOP, hardware and software logs), consent workflows, and personnel training. While existing MRI review papers largely focus on analytical methods, safety protocols, and results of large consortium efforts, few publications detail specific operational protocols of MRI data collection that allow for consistent, high-impact neuroimaging research including participant recruitment, staff training, and practical scanning considerations. The operational protocols presented here are designed to facilitate reproducible, high-quality neuroimaging acquisition across clinically diverse populations, with a particular focus on functional MRI. Importantly, many of the recommendations described are grounded in practical experience rather than prescriptive guidelines alone. They represent lessons learned through years of iterative refinement, troubleshooting, and trial-and-error while conducting thousands of MRI scans in clinical research settings. By sharing these operational insights, we hope to provide researchers with practical strategies that can reduce common challenges and accelerate the development of robust neuroimaging workflows.

Indexed as

clinical research workflowMRI study designneuroimaging research logistics guidelinesreproducible MRI datasystematic collection of MRI data

Identifiers

PMID42898350
PMCPMC13677880

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.