ReviewMedical image analysis2026
Harmonization in magnetic resonance imaging: A survey of acquisition, image-level, and feature-level methods.
Review in Medical image analysis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical, radiographic, and neuropathologic characterization of peripherally hyperenhancing brain metastases: a novel radiographic entity.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2026Article
- Early identification of vascular cognitive impairment from a multimodal perspective: a combined diagnosis from targeted cognitive assessments, imaging biomarkers, and molecular fluid biomarkers to ecological behavioral characteristics.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Review
- What needs to be standardized for reliable, reproducible, and robust tractography?GigaScience · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has greatly advanced neuroscience research and clinical diagnostics. However, imaging data collected across different scanners, acquisition protocols, or imaging sites often exhibit substantial heterogeneity, known as "batch effects" or "site effects." These non-biological sources of variability can obscure true biological signals, reduce reproducibility and statistical power, and severely impair the generalizability of learning-based models across datasets. Image harmonization is grounded in the central hypothesis that site-related biases can be eliminated or mitigated while preserving meaningful biological information, thereby improving data comparability and consistency. This review provides a comprehensive overview of key concepts, methodological advances, publicly available datasets, and evaluation metrics in the field of MRI harmonization. We systematically cover the full imaging pipeline and categorize harmonization approaches into prospective acquisition and reconstruction, retrospective image-level and feature-level methods, and traveling-subject-based techniques. By synthesizing existing methods and evidence, we revisit the central hypothesis of image harmonization and show that, although site invariance can be achieved with current techniques, further evaluation is required to verify the preservation of biological information. To this end, we summarize the remaining challenges and highlight key directions for future research, including the need for standardized validation benchmarks, improved evaluation strategies, and tighter integration of harmonization methods across the imaging pipeline.
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.