Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34848299›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2022

Reliability of structural MRI measurements: The effects of scan session, head tilt, inter-scan interval, acquisition sequence, FreeSurfer version and processing stream.

Emily P Hedges, Mihail Dimitrov, Uzma Zahid, Barbara Brito Vega, Shuqing Si, Hannah Dickson, Philip McGuire, Steven Williams, Gareth J Barker, Matthew J Kempton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 78 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
78citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–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

78 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A whole-brain voxel-based analysis of structural abnormalities in PTSD: An ENIGMA-PGC study.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Deep survival modeling to predict future cognitive impairment in unimpaired adults.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

18 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

10 authors.

Emily P HedgesDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, United Kingdom. Electronic address: emily.p.hedges@kcl.ac.uk.
Mihail DimitrovDepartment of Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London SE5 8AF, United Kingdom.
Uzma ZahidDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, United Kingdom.
Barbara Brito VegaDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, United Kingdom.
Shuqing SiDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, United Kingdom.
Hannah DicksonDepartment of Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London SE5 8AF, United Kingdom.
Philip McGuireDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, United Kingdom.
Steven WilliamsDepartment of Neuroimaging, Centre for Neuroimaging Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London SE5 8AF, United Kingdom.
Gareth J BarkerDepartment of Neuroimaging, Centre for Neuroimaging Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London SE5 8AF, United Kingdom.
Matthew J KemptonDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of HealthMedical Research Council MR/J008915/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLarge-scale longitudinal and multi-centre studies are used to explore neuroimaging markers of normal ageing, and neurodegenerative and mental health disorders. Longitudinal changes in brain structure are typically small, therefore the reliability of automated techniques is crucial. Determining the effects of different factors on reliability allows investigators to control those adversely affecting reliability, calculate statistical power, or even avoid particular brain measures with low reliability. This study examined the impact of several image acquisition and processing factors and documented the test-retest reliability of structural MRI measurements.

methodsIn Phase I, 20 healthy adults (11 females; aged 20-30 years) were scanned on two occasions three weeks apart on the same scanner using the ADNI-3 protocol. On each occasion, individuals were scanned twice (repetition), after re-entering the scanner (reposition) and after tilting their head forward. At one year follow-up, nine returning individuals and 11 new volunteers were recruited for Phase II (11 females; aged 22-31 years). Scans were acquired on two different scanners using the ADNI-2 and ADNI-3 protocols. Structural images were processed using FreeSurfer (v5.3.0, 6.0.0 and 7.1.0) to provide subcortical and cortical volume, cortical surface area and thickness measurements. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to estimate test-retest reliability. We examined the effect of repetition, reposition, head tilt, time between scans, MRI sequence and scanner on reliability of structural brain measurements. Mean percentage differences were also calculated in supplementary analyses.

resultsUsing the FreeSurfer v7.1.0 longitudinal pipeline, we observed high reliability for subcortical and cortical volumes, and cortical surface areas at repetition, reposition, three weeks and one year (mean ICCs>0.97). Cortical thickness reliability was lower (mean ICCs>0.82). Head tilt had the greatest adverse impact on ICC estimates, for example reducing mean right cortical thickness to ICC=0.74. In contrast, changes in ADNI sequence or MRI scanner had a minimal effect. We observed an increase in reliability for updated FreeSurfer versions, with the longitudinal pipeline consistently having a higher reliability than the cross-sectional pipeline. DISCUSSION: Longitudinal studies should monitor or control head tilt to maximise reliability. We provided the ICC estimates and mean percentage differences for all FreeSurfer brain regions, which may inform power analyses for clinical studies and have implications for the design of future longitudinal studies.

Indexed as

AdultBrainFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleNeuroimagingReproducibility of ResultsYoung AdultLongitudinalMorphologyReproducibilityStructural MRI

Identifiers

PMID34848299
PMCPMC8784825

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.