ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2024
A comparison of fMRI presurgical mapping techniques with intraoperative brain mapping-based validation.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2024. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Resting-state functional MRI (rsfMRI) could enable preoperative risk assessment and intraoperative guidance for patients who cannot undergo task-based fMRI (tbfMRI). To ascertain rsfMRI's applicability, we investigated differences in accuracy between tbfMRI with a voxel size of 1.8 x 1.8 x 3.2 mm³ and rsfMRI acquired with single-echo (sTE) with a voxel size of 2 x 2 x 2.2 mm³ and multiecho (mTE) with a voxel size of 3 x 3 x 3 mm³ using intraoperative mapping with direct electrical stimulations (DES) as the ground truth. Functional sensory-motor mapping results of hands and feet were spatially compared relative to positive (pDES, functional effect) and negative (nDES, no functional effect) coordinates in 16 preoperative patients. A general linear model analysis was used for tbfMRI, and seed-based analysis (SBA) for rsfMRI. Minimum Euclidean distances between fMRI and DES were calculated and compared between fMRI methods. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to compare accuracy and determine distance cutoffs for fMRI agreement with DES, and binary agreement rates were compared at different cutoffs. Two-part mixed-effects linear models were used to compare fMRI methods while accounting for unequal intersubject DES repetition. Only minor differences were found between fMRI methods in unthresholded distances (mean differences ~2 mm). ROCs and binary agreement measures showed comparable accuracy for tbfMRI and sTE-rsfMRI at 2 mm, but mildly worse for sTE-rsfMRI at 3 mm and mTE-rsfMRI. However, differences in relative accuracy between sTE-rsfMRI and mTE-rsfMRI were minor when the same distance cutoff was applied to all methods. This was also reflected in comparing binary agreement rates and confirmed by the two-part linear models, which showed no significant differences between fMRI methods and a significant effect of DES response. A similar accuracy for SBA rsfMRI functional sensory-motor mapping compared with tbfMRI for the hands and feet indicates that rsfMRI may be suitable for presurgical mapping. The differences in relative accuracy between sTE-rsfMRI and mTE-rsfMRI warrant further investigation in a larger sample.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.