Home › Research › Vascular contributions
Upper cervical spinal cord morphometric charts: from population references to individualized clinical assessment
Wang J, Hua T, Wu H, Zhang R, Xu S, Zhang C, Chai L, Yao Y et al.. medRxiv, 2026-10-12
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
The upper cervical spinal cord is essential for motor, sensory and autonomic function, yet its normative morphometric trajectories and disease-related deviations remain unclear. Using three-dimensional T1-weighted images from 10,159 healthy individuals aged 8-85 years, we established normative references for averaged and level-specific upper cervical spinal cord morphometry, revealing measure-specific trajectories with peak ages of 29.7-44.1 years. These references were applied to 2,394 patients with seven neurological disorders: mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, cerebral small vessel disease, multiple sclerosis, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder and myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody-associated disease to derive individualized deviation scores. These deviation scores captured disease-specific abnormalities, enabled disease classification, and were associated with cognition, physical disability and disease progression. Finally, a personalized upper cervical spinal cord report was developed to support individualized imaging interpretation. Together, these findings provide a normative framework for quantifying upper cervical spinal cord morphometry and advancing personalized assessment across neurological disorders.
Key findings
- These deviation scores captured disease-specific abnormalities, enabled disease classification, and were associated with cognition, physical disability and disease progression.
- Together, these findings provide a normative framework for quantifying upper cervical spinal cord morphometry and advancing personalized assessment across neurological disorders.
Study details
- Participants2,394
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 31 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 19 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 31 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (medRxiv) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 2,394 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 19 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 19 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 31 out of 100. |
| Total | 31 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Wang, J., Hua, T., Wu, H., Zhang, R., Xu, S., Zhang, C., et al. (2026). Upper cervical spinal cord morphometric charts: from population references to individualized clinical assessment. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.10.09.26364862
Vancouver
Wang J, Hua T, Wu H, Zhang R, Xu S, Zhang C, et al. Upper cervical spinal cord morphometric charts: from population references to individualized clinical assessment. medRxiv. 2026. doi:10.64898/2026.10.09.26364862.
BibTeX
@article{wang2026-1d881181,
author = {Wang, J. and Hua, T. and Wu, H. and Zhang, R. and Xu, S. and Zhang, C. and Chai, L. and Yao, Y. and others},
title = {{Upper cervical spinal cord morphometric charts: from population references to individualized clinical assessment}},
journal = {medRxiv},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.64898/2026.10.09.26364862},
url = {https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.10.09.26364862}
}
Related studies in Vascular contributions
Also tagged “diffusion”
171 studies in the library carry the topic tag “diffusion”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 171 tagged studies.