↓ Skip to main content

Quality Control of Structural MRI Images Applied Using FreeSurfer—A Hands-On Workflow to Rate Motion Artifacts

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
164 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Quality Control of Structural MRI Images Applied Using FreeSurfer—A Hands-On Workflow to Rate Motion Artifacts
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, December 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2016.00558
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lea L. Backhausen, Megan M. Herting, Judith Buse, Veit Roessner, Michael N. Smolka, Nora C. Vetter

Abstract

In structural magnetic resonance imaging motion artifacts are common, especially when not scanning healthy young adults. It has been shown that motion affects the analysis with automated image-processing techniques (e.g., FreeSurfer). This can bias results. Several developmental and adult studies have found reduced volume and thickness of gray matter due to motion artifacts. Thus, quality control is necessary in order to ensure an acceptable level of quality and to define exclusion criteria of images (i.e., determine participants with most severe artifacts). However, information about the quality control workflow and image exclusion procedure is largely lacking in the current literature and the existing rating systems differ. Here, we propose a stringent workflow of quality control steps during and after acquisition of T1-weighted images, which enables researchers dealing with populations that are typically affected by motion artifacts to enhance data quality and maximize sample sizes. As an underlying aim we established a thorough quality control rating system for T1-weighted images and applied it to the analysis of developmental clinical data using the automated processing pipeline FreeSurfer. This hands-on workflow and quality control rating system will aid researchers in minimizing motion artifacts in the final data set, and therefore enhance the quality of structural magnetic resonance imaging studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 <1%
Unknown 163 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 23%
Researcher 30 18%
Student > Master 20 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Other 22 13%
Unknown 35 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 48 29%
Psychology 23 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 5%
Engineering 8 5%
Computer Science 5 3%
Other 17 10%
Unknown 54 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 December 2016.
All research outputs
#19,945,185
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#8,670
of 11,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#301,667
of 420,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#98
of 143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,541 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 420,280 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 143 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.