Dear reviewers: Responses to common reviewer critiques about infant neuroimaging studies

Abstract

The field of adult neuroimaging relies on well-established principles in research design, imaging sequences, processing pipelines, as well as safety and data collection protocols. The field of infant magnetic resonance imaging, by comparison, is a young field with tremendous scientific potential but continuously evolving standards. The present article aims to initiate a constructive dialog between researchers who grapple with the challenges and inherent limitations of a nascent field and reviewers who evaluate their work. We address 20 questions that researchers commonly receive from research ethics boards, grant, and manuscript reviewers related to infant neuroimaging data collection, safety protocols, study planning, imaging sequences, decisions related to software and hardware, and data processing and sharing, while acknowledging both the accomplishments of the field and areas of much needed future advancements. This article reflects the cumulative knowledge of experts in the FIT’NG community and can act as a resource for both researchers and reviewers alike seeking a deeper understanding of the standards and tradeoffs involved in infant neuroimaging.

(Un)common space in infant neuroimaging studies: A systematic review of infant templates

“…Similarly, coordinate‐based meta‐analyses—which provide a more precise estimate of the effect size and can increase the generalizability of the results of individual studies—are not possible without a common coordinate system to report results. As infant neuroimaging has an existing small sample size issue (Korom et al, 2021), defining a standard common space will facilitate meta‐analyses and data sharing and enhance rigor and reproducibility across infant neuroimaging studies.…”

“…There still exist several challenges specific to infant neuroimaging data that have contributed to the lack of consensus and standardization of a common space across the field (Korom et al, 2021). A standard common space for infant neuroimaging would have to consider the rapid growth in cytoarchitecture, shape, and volume that occurs between birth and the end of the second year of life (Oishi et al, 2019).…”

Immuno-epigenetic signature derived in saliva associates with the encephalopathy of prematurity and perinatal inflammatory disorders

“…Neuroimaging studies are notoriously heterogenous in their design given the array of different MRI acquisition techniques, processing pipelines and chosen outcome measures. The choice of neuroimaging features is even more relevant in the context of preterm birth to adequately address the motivating research questions (38). Here, our choice of neuroimaging features was guided by established characterizations of EoP in preterm infants, namely water content and dendritic/axonal complexity and dysmaturation within the white matter, and grey matter volume (77,124).…”

“…Moreover, the relative nascency of the neonatal neuroimaging field (38) contributes to substantial variation in the acquisition and selection of brain outcome measures, and there is marked anatomic variation in early life, which can confound investigation of structure-function relationships (39).…”

“…The relative inconsistency of work to date is likely due to heterogeneity in study design: there is substantial variation in the demographic characteristics of study samples; the degree to which residual confounding factors are controlled; and the presence or absence of term control groups. Moreover, the relative nascency of the neonatal neuroimaging field (38) contributes to substantial variation in the acquisition and selection of brain outcome measures, and there is marked anatomic variation in early life, which can confound investigation of structure-function relationships (39).…”