Explore our 2026 Submission Requirements for all abstracts below.

Abstract Content Requirements

  • Abstracts must be written in English.
  • The content may not promote the proprietary interests of any commercial entity. Evident bias in favor of a particular product or company is grounds for rejection. (Reference to the use of a particular company’s products or equipment does not represent bias. Non-data-driven statements of superiority, however, would be considered biased.)
  • Content must be restricted to scientific, engineering, and clinical studies, as well as industry issues and operation of devices. Product/company names should be included only to identify the MR hardware/software/peripherals used but not to promote proprietary interests.
  • All recommendations involving clinical medicine must be based on evidence that is accepted within the profession of medicine as adequate justification for the recommendations as indications or contraindications in the care of patients.
  • All scientific research referred to, reported, or used in support or justification of a patient care recommendation must conform to generally accepted standards of experimental design, data collection, and analysis.
  • Abstracts previously submitted to the ISMRM or to another society/journal, but not accepted, may be resubmitted.
  • While aids such as ChatGPT or similar may be used to help in writing, authors of the abstracts bear complete responsibility for the accuracy of all data, analysis, and statements within abstracts. Non-human tools should not be listed as authors. Falsification of data or statements is unacceptable and is grounds for rejection of current and future submissions to ISMRM.
  • We encourage sharing of code and data with abstracts. However, this information should not be made available to reviewers, because it would unblind the review process. Please include links to code, data, or other supporting information in the Acknowledgements.

Rejection of Duplicate Abstracts

Any abstract(s) deemed to duplicate or to contain significant overlap of content, either with work published prior to the deadline or with other abstracts submitted by the same authors, will be rejected. Determination of what constitutes duplication, including abstracts submitted in multiple categories or over multiple years, is at the discretion of the AMPC. Details of identified duplicate submissions will be maintained in our database and may jeopardize submission of future abstracts by the same individuals or institutions. The electronic submission system facilitates easy identification of duplicate text and data.

Failure to Present

All accepted works that are not withdrawn before the 27 February 2026 withdrawal deadline must be presented, in person, by the author or their designee. During the submission process, authors are required to acknowledge that one of the authors will be on-site at the Annual Meeting to present this work. If an author or other representative is not present, and the accepted abstract was not withdrawn, the author or co-authors may be prohibited from submitting abstracts to this conference in the following three (3) years.

Categories

Categories and keywords are used (1) to assign reviewers, (2) during program assembly, and (3) to enhance consistency and searchability of abstracts in the program and online proceedings. Select the following to characterize your work:

  • Primary category and subcategory (or “category keyword”), from list
  • Secondary category and subcategory (or “category keyword”), from list
  • General keyword, from list or supply your own keyword

ISMRM is unique in that much of our work crosses boundaries, and authors are encouraged to select different primary and secondary categories and/or subcategories. We will make every effort to assign reviewers based on both the primary and secondary categories and subcategories.

Abstract Preview Images

Presentations will be highlighted using a single figure and information about the authors in an abstract thumbnail. In order to accomplish this, you will be asked for the following:

  1. A Preview Figure (thumbnail) for use on program session pages and on preview/teaser pages. It is not part of the abstract review. This figure:
    • Should be a simple & uncluttered representation of your work.
    • Does not have a caption, nor should it have small text within the image.
    • Is legible at small sizes, especially on mobile devices.
    • Will be visible to the public on session pages.
  2. The Impact statement will also be included.
  3. An Institutional Logo image file can also be included with the Abstract Preview Figure. If you need to acknowledge more than one institution, you must create a single image containing all necessary logos. Alternatively, you may use a project or consortium logo instead of institutional logos.

ISMRM Abstract Requirements

Suggested Abstract Format

We recommend including the following sections, although we also note that there are often good reasons to deviate from this format. In each section, answer the question listed below (do not repeat the actual question in the body of your abstract).

  • INTRODUCTION: “Why was this study/research performed? What unsolved problem are you addressing?”
  • METHODS: “How did you study this problem?”
  • RESULTS: “Report the data, analyses and/or outcomes”
  • DISCUSSION: “How do you interpret the results?”
  • CONCLUSION: “What is the relevance to clinical practice or future research?”
  • REFERENCES: References should use the suggested style below.

Figures

  • Up to 5 Figures should be uploaded as part of the abstract, along with a caption for each figure.
  • Additionally, one Preview Figure should be uploaded (as described above, with no caption).

Word Limits

The following word limits will apply:

  • Title: 125 characters
  • Synopsis: 100 words (combined 4 sections)
  • Impact: 40 words
  • Body of the Abstract: 750 words (references not included)
  • Preview Figure: one figure, no caption, legible at the width of a mobile smartphone
  • Figures: up to 5 only for abstract
  • Figure Captions: 500 characters per caption

References

Cite each source in numerical order using superscript Arabic numerals.

  • Example 1:
    A review of regulations has been complete by the WHO15.
  • Example 2:
    The data were as follows 3,4:
  • Example 3:
    …methods for MR fingerprinting 11-14,25,

At the end of the abstract, list references numerically in the order in which they were cited in the text.

  • Example 1:
    1. Rainier S, Thomas D, Tokarz D, et al. Myofibrillogenesis regulator 1 gene mutations cause paroxysmal dystonic choreoathetosis. Arch Neurol. 2004;61(7):1025‐1029.
  • Example 2:
    2. World Health Organization. Injury: A Leading Cause of the Global Burden of Disease, 2000. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2002.
  • Example 3:
    3. Weiss R. The promise of precision prescriptions. Washington Post. June 24, 2000:A1. http://www.washingtonpost.com. Accessed October 10, 2001.

Abstract Review Criteria

  • Adherence to the Abstract Guidelines (as stated above).
  • Duplication of Content (see also above). Multiple submissions of the same or nearly the same abstract is grounds for rejection of all submitted abstracts.
  • Prior Publication. Content should differ substantially from any publication with publication date (or early view) prior to the abstract deadline.
  • Quality: The results should be substantive and not just implied. Where appropriate:
    • Comprehensive statistical analysis should be applied.
    • Images and spectra should be of the highest quality.
  • Impact: The method or data in the abstract should aim to advance or change the field in significant ways. Incremental changes are less likely to be accepted for presentation.

Registered Abstract Requirements

What is a Registered Abstract?

A Registered Abstract is an abstract where research methods are submitted and assessed by reviewers before the results are known.

What can and cannot be submitted as a Registered Abstract?

This format is open for submissions in any of the standard submission categories. Registered Abstracts are for research that is attempting to validate a carefully defined hypothesis. We especially encourage researchers who want to validate/translate preliminary work (e.g., a previous ISMRM abstract) to submit in this category.

Please note, you cannot submit:

  • Research where you already have results (if you already have pilot data that will be excluded from the full analysis, the full analysis is allowed).
  • The same research as both a standard abstract (with results) and a registered abstract.
  • Research you have already published elsewhere with results (both peer-reviewed and pre-prints).

Why should I submit a Registered Abstract?

Pre-registering your research shows credibility and a dedication to best practices. Submitting research in this format has the potential to reduce false positives in results presented at the ISMRM meeting while fostering the translation towards clinical application and more robust research tools. Researchers that have pre-registered their work also report that it helps with clarity of thought, experiment design, and staying on track with the original research question. More info about registrations here: https://help.osf.io/article/603-benefits-of-registration

How do I write a Registered Abstract?

There are many ways to write a pre-registration, which is what a registered abstract really is, but the most important component is a carefully prepared methods section with an explicit hypothesis and data analysis plan. The introduction should motivate the study (why should anyone care about this result?). The Statistical Methods section should include an appropriate statistical plan (e.g., sample size calculation, effect size estimation, etc.). Pre-registration templates that outline core details to include and record in the pre-registration can be found on e.g., OSF (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DaNmJEtBy04bq1l5OxS4JAscdZEkUGATURWwnBKLYxk/edit) and asPredicted.org (https://aspredicted.org/kv692.pdf).

What is the submission process for Registered Abstracts?

Registered Abstracts differ from the conventional abstracts in a few key ways:

  • A Registered Abstract should include an Introduction, Hypothesis, Methods, and Statistical Methods sections.
    • Only these sections are peer-reviewed during the initial abstract review.
    • The Results and Discussion sections will be submitted after abstract acceptance and are expected to be presented at the annual conference.
  • Author guidelines:
    • The total word count shall not exceed 500 words (unlike conventional abstracts that can be up to 750 words long).
    • Only two figures/tables can be submitted.
  • A few important tips:
    • The Registered Abstract must clearly state a hypothesis.
    • Work that is not yet completed needs to be described in the future tense to avoid ambiguity.

How will Registered Abstracts be scored?

Similar to conventional abstracts, reviewers will evaluate the overall quality of the abstract. Additionally, reviewers will confirm that certain minimum requirements for a registered abstract have been met:

  1. Does the abstract contain an explicit testable hypothesis/research question?
  2. Have the authors explicitly described the necessary conditions for a successful experiment? This could include proposing the relevant statistical analysis and including, where appropriate, power analysis (this may use pilot data excluded from the final analysis) from the minimum effect size.
  3. Have the authors shown that they can feasibly complete their experiment in order to present results in time for the annual meeting? If certain circumstances make it particularly easy to collect data that would seem hard for others, authors are encouraged to include this in the abstract to allow reviewers to see the feasibility of the experiments.

Examples:

  1. A new method for reducing noise in the measurements on a low field scanner was presented at last year’s ISMRM and is now applied to a different low-field scanner. The registered abstract should contain a clearly defined hypothesis (e.g. does this method work on the other scanner model?) and study design (e.g. how the method needs to be modified if it needs to be modified at all; how much the SNR has to improve to be considered a success; how many times the noise measurement needs to be taken for statistically useful results, etc.)
  2. A researcher has developed a new method for reconstructing MRF data that they think is faster than and of equal quality to standard methods. The registered abstract should contain a clearly defined hypothesis (e.g. is my method faster than and of equal quality to standard methods, e.g. low-rank subspace reconstruction implemented in BART?) and study design (e.g. what hardware should the methods be compared on, what data should the methods be compared on, how are these choices justified, which metric will be used to assess quality of results, etc.)
  3. A new sequence was published a few years ago that indicates stroke’s onset time, this is now used clinically and a researcher is doing a clinical trial to determine the accuracy of the method. The registered abstract should contain a clearly defined hypothesis (e.g. what is the uncertainty in stroke onset estimation using the new sequence?) and study design (have data been collected but not yet analysed or they need to be collected, full analysis pipeline including data exclusion criteria, sample size justification, sources of uncertainty, sites harmonisation in case of multiple site study, etc.)
  4. A newly published CNN model is applied to a new dataset. The registered abstract should contain a clearly defined hypothesis (e.g. does this model outperform previous gold standards, e.g. U-Net) and study design (e.g. training on N-subjects chosen pseudo-randomly, then verified on M-subjects and tested on K-subjects, using PSNR as quality metric, etc.)

MRI in Clinical Practice Requirements

For the 2026 Annual Meeting, we are accepting submissions highlighting “MRI in Clinical Practice”.

These abstracts should present the added value of MRI in impacting patient care.

We encourage authors to construct the abstract as a narrative of the patient’s clinical history including unique medical and social factors, as appropriate. An analysis of a series of cases is also appropriate for this category. The abstract must include specifics of the utilization, technical specifications, and contribution of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)  in the management of the patient’s clinical presentation.

All submitted abstracts will undergo peer review. Accepted abstracts will be presented on-site at the 2026 ISMRM Annual Meeting in Cape Town, South Africa. At least one author must attend in person to present the work.

Abstracts will be evaluated based on the added value of MRI in impacting patient care, particularly where MRI provided unique diagnostic or management insights. Examples include:

  • Use of an MR artifact or novel MRI contrasts that contributed to a patient’s diagnosis
  • Use of innovative, emerging and advanced MRI techniques in diagnosis or therapy (e.g., a new sequence, contrast agent or processing method that enabled diagnosis, experience with new hardware, low-field MRI in a setting where MRI is otherwise unavailable)
  • Report the added value of MRI compared to other imaging modalities (e.g., CT, ultrasound, PET)
  • Detection of disease features not visible with other imaging techniques
  • MRI identifies complications or treatment side effects not captured by other imaging tests

Required Abstract Structure

Title

  • Suggested format: “MRI in Clinical Practice: Diagnosis of …” OR “MRI in Clinical Practice: Management of …”

Clinical Presentation and Assessment

  • Brief report of patient presentation, physical exam findings, and relevant laboratory tests. No identifiers may be included.
  • Describe imaging tests, including MRI, used to work-up the patient. Highlight aspects (e.g., magnet strength, pulse sequence and key parameters, contrast agent) of the MRI technology.

Diagnosis and Treatment

  • Report the final diagnosis and how the imaging diagnosis was confirmed (e.g., biopsy, follow-up imaging, combination of imaging and lab tests) and treated.

Significance

  • State how MRI was applied in a novel or unique way to address the clinical question and impact patient diagnosis or management. Emphasize the impact of MRI: how it changed diagnostic certainty, management, or patient outcome.

Key Points

List at least 3 key points about the disease and MR imaging manifestation or treatment impact relevant for clinical practice.

Figures

Up to 5 images with figure legend. Please use arrows or labels to highlight critical features.

References

Please appropriately cite relevant previous work including background and methodological information.

Impact

A 40-word Impact statement should state the impact of MRI: how it changed diagnostic certainty, management, or patient outcome. The impact statement will be provided alongside the Preview figure as a teaser in the meeting program.

Synopsis

A 100-word unstructured Synopsis should be provided to summarize the report.

Submission Requirements

  • Abstracts must not exceed 750 words.
  • Up to 5 figures may be included.
  • A preview figure (for program display) must also be submitted, but will not be included in peer review.