Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40260740›Full record

ArticleHuman brain mapping2025

Sensitivity of Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping for Clinical Research in Deep Gray Matter.

Fahad Salman, Abhisri Ramesh, Thomas Jochmann, Mirjam Prayer, Ademola Adegbemigun, Jack A Reeves, Gregory E Wilding, Junghun Cho, Dejan Jakimovski, Niels Bergsland and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human brain mapping, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Fahad SalmanBuffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, Department of Neurology at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USA.ORCID 0009-0000-3873-2301
Abhisri RameshBuffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, Department of Neurology at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USA.
Thomas JochmannBuffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, Department of Neurology at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3564-4127
Mirjam PrayerBuffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, Department of Neurology at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USA.
Ademola AdegbemigunBuffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, Department of Neurology at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USA.
Jack A ReevesBuffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, Department of Neurology at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USA.
Gregory E WildingDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health and Health Professions, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA.
Junghun ChoBuffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, Department of Neurology at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USA.
Dejan JakimovskiBuffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, Department of Neurology at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USA.
Niels BergslandBuffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, Department of Neurology at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7792-0433
Michael G DwyerBuffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, Department of Neurology at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4684-4658
Robert ZivadinovBuffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, Department of Neurology at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USA.
Ferdinand SchweserBuffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, Department of Neurology at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0399-9211

Funding

University of Buffalo Clinical and Translational Science Institute - Supplement SchulyerUL1TR001412 · NCATS · STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO · PI MURPHY, TIMOTHY F · 2015 to 2024
$33.8M
Deep Gray Matter Iron and Disease Progression in Multiple SclerosisR01NS114227 · NINDS · STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO · PI SCHWESER, FERDINAND · 2021 to 2024
$1.5M
Acquisition of High Performance Data and Computing Infrastructure to Advance Biomedical ResearchS10OD024973 · OD · STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO · PI FURLANI, THOMAS · 2019 to 2019
$1.0M
German Academic Exchange Service DAAD PPP 57599925German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) 16KISA024National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health UL1TR001412National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke of the National Institutes of Health R01NS114227NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001412NIH HHS S10 OD024973NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS114227
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) is an advanced MRI technique for assessing iron, calcium, and myelin tissue levels based on magnetic susceptibility. QSM consists of multiple processing steps, with various choices for each step. While QSM is increasingly applied in neurodegenerative disease research, its reproducibility and sensitivity in detecting susceptibility changes across groups or over time, which underpin the interpretation of clinical outcomes, have not been thoroughly quantified. This study aimed to evaluate how choices in background field removal (BFR), dipole inversion algorithms, and anatomical referencing impact the detection of changes in deep gray matter susceptibility. We used aging-related changes in brain iron, established in earlier foundational studies, as a surrogate model to test the sensitivity and reproducibility of 378 different QSM pipelines toward the detection of longitudinal susceptibility changes in a clinical setting. We used 10-year follow-up data and scan-rescan data of healthy adults scanned at 3T. Our results demonstrated high variability in the sensitivity of QSM pipelines toward detecting susceptibility changes. While most pipelines detected the same over-time changes, the choice of the BFR algorithm and the referencing strategy influenced reproducibility error and sensitivity substantially. Notably, pipelines using RESHARP with AMP-PE, HEIDI, or LSQR inversion showed the highest overall sensitivity. The findings suggest a strong impact of algorithmic choices in QSM processing on the ability to detect physiological changes in the brain. Careful consideration should be given to the pipeline configuration for reliable clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

AgingBrain MappingGray MatterImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeuroimagingAdultAgedFemaleHumansIronLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityIronalgorithmic reproducibilityalgorithmic sensitivitybrain ironclinical researchdeep gray matterMRIquantitative susceptibility mapping

Identifiers

PMID40260740
PMCPMC12012649

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.