Quality control in functional MRI studies with MRIQC and fMRIPrep
The implementation of adequate quality assessment (QA) and quality control (QC) protocols within the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) research workflow is resource- and time-consuming and even more so is their execution. As a result, QA/QC practices highly vary across laboratories and "MRI scho...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Frontiers in neuroimaging Vol. 1; p. 1073734 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Switzerland
Frontiers Media S.A
12-01-2023
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | The implementation of adequate quality assessment (QA) and quality control (QC) protocols within the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) research workflow is resource- and time-consuming and even more so is their execution. As a result, QA/QC practices highly vary across laboratories and "MRI schools", ranging from highly specialized knowledge spots to environments where QA/QC is considered overly onerous and costly despite evidence showing that below-standard data increase the false positive and false negative rates of the final results. Here, we demonstrate a protocol based on the visual assessment of images one-by-one with reports generated by MRIQC and fMRIPrep, for the QC of data in functional (blood-oxygen dependent-level; BOLD) MRI analyses. We particularize the proposed, open-ended scope of application to whole-brain voxel-wise analyses of BOLD to correspondingly enumerate and define the exclusion criteria applied at the QC checkpoints. We apply our protocol on a composite dataset (
= 181 subjects) drawn from open fMRI studies, resulting in the exclusion of 97% of the data (176 subjects). This high exclusion rate was expected because subjects were selected to showcase artifacts. We describe the artifacts and defects more commonly found in the dataset that justified exclusion. We moreover release all the materials we generated in this assessment and document all the QC decisions with the expectation of contributing to the standardization of these procedures and engaging in the discussion of QA/QC by the community. |
|---|---|
| Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 Edited by: Richard Craig Reynolds, Clinical Center (NIH), United States Reviewed by: Can Ceritoglu, Johns Hopkins University, United States; Annika Carola Linke, Western University, Canada This article was submitted to Brain Imaging Methods, a section of the journal Frontiers in Neuroimaging |
| ISSN: | 2813-1193 2813-1193 |
| DOI: | 10.3389/fnimg.2022.1073734 |