Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23637895›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

Simultaneous analysis and quality assurance for diffusion tensor imaging.

Carolyn B Lauzon, Andrew J Asman, Michael L Esparza, Scott S Burns, Qiuyun Fan, Yurui Gao, Adam W Anderson, Nicole Davis, Laurie E Cutting, Bennett A Landman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Field-of-view extension for brain diffusion MRI via deep generative models.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Graph theoretical approach to brain remodeling in multiple sclerosis.Network neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Carolyn B LauzonDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, United States of America.
Andrew J Asman
Michael L Esparza
Scott S Burns
Qiuyun Fan
Yurui Gao
Adam W Anderson
Nicole Davis
Laurie E Cutting
Bennett A Landman
Vanderbilt University · US

Funding

VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY CTSA FOR PEDIATRIC RESEARCHUL1RR024975 · NCRR · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI BERNARD, GORDON RAPHAEL · 2007 to 2011
$45.7M
Visual word identification: phonology &morphologyP01HD001994 · NICHD · HASKINS LABORATORIES, INC. · PI MAGNUSON, JAMES S · 1985 to 2016
$23.5M
VALITIDY OF RTI FOR IDENTIFYING READING DISABILITY BEYOND THE PRIMARY GRADESP50HD052121 · NICHD · HUGO W. MOSER RES INST KENNEDY KRIEGER · PI CUTTING, LAURIE E · 2006 to 2010
$8.4M
Cognitive and Neural Processes in Reading ComprehensionR01HD044073 · NICHD · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI CUTTING, LAURIE E · 2004 to 2019
$8.1M
Postdoctoral Training in Biomedical MRI and MRST32EB001628 · NIBIB · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI John C Gore · 2003 to 2026
$7.0M
The Biological Basis of Diffusion MRI of the BrainR01NS058639 · NINDS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI ANDERSON, ADAM W · 2008 to 2016
$3.7M
Predicting Late-Emerging RD: Neurobiological and Cognitive FactorsR01HD067254 · NICHD · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI CUTTING, LAURIE E · 2010 to 2014
$2.9M
Neurobiology and Treatment of Reading Disability in NF1R01NS049096 · NINDS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI CUTTING, LAURIE E · 2006 to 2010
$1.9M
Predoctoral Training Program in Biomedical ImagingT32EB003817 · NIBIB · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI GORE, JOHN C · 2004 to 2008
$1.3M
Dyslexia in Post-Secondary Students: Imaging of Neural Circuits and LearningK08HD060850 · NICHD · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI RIMRODT, SHERYL L. · 2010 to 2014
$629k
Resource Development for the Java Image Science ToolkitR03EB012461 · NIBIB · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI LANDMAN, BENNETT A. · 2010 to 2010
$147k
NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024975NIBIB NIH HHS NIH/NINDS 1R03EB012461NIBIB NIH HHS R03 EB012461NIBIB NIH HHS T32 EB001628NIBIB NIH HHS T32 EB003817NICHD NIH HHS K08 HD060850NICHD NIH HHS K08HD060850NICHD NIH HHS P01 HD001994NICHD NIH HHS P50 HD052121NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD044073NICHD NIH HHS R01HD044073NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD067254NICHD NIH HHS R01HD067254NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS049096NINDS NIH HHS R01NS049096NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS058639PHS HHS NCRR/NIH UL1 RR024975-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) enables non-invasive, cyto-architectural mapping of in vivo tissue microarchitecture through voxel-wise mathematical modeling of multiple magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) acquisitions, each differently sensitized to water diffusion. DTI computations are fundamentally estimation processes and are sensitive to noise and artifacts. Despite widespread adoption in the neuroimaging community, maintaining consistent DTI data quality remains challenging given the propensity for patient motion, artifacts associated with fast imaging techniques, and the possibility of hardware changes/failures. Furthermore, the quantity of data acquired per voxel, the non-linear estimation process, and numerous potential use cases complicate traditional visual data inspection approaches. Currently, quality inspection of DTI data has relied on visual inspection and individual processing in DTI analysis software programs (e.g. DTIPrep, DTI-studio). However, recent advances in applied statistical methods have yielded several different metrics to assess noise level, artifact propensity, quality of tensor fit, variance of estimated measures, and bias in estimated measures. To date, these metrics have been largely studied in isolation. Herein, we select complementary metrics for integration into an automatic DTI analysis and quality assurance pipeline. The pipeline completes in 24 hours, stores statistical outputs, and produces a graphical summary quality analysis (QA) report. We assess the utility of this streamlined approach for empirical quality assessment on 608 DTI datasets from pediatric neuroimaging studies. The efficiency and accuracy of quality analysis using the proposed pipeline is compared with quality analysis based on visual inspection. The unified pipeline is found to save a statistically significant amount of time (over 70%) while improving the consistency of QA between a DTI expert and a pool of research associates. Projection of QA metrics to a low dimensional manifold reveal qualitative, but clear, QA-study associations and suggest that automated outlier/anomaly detection would be feasible.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsChildDiffusion Tensor ImagingHumansPrincipal Component AnalysisQuality ControlSoftware

Identifiers

PMID23637895
PMCPMC3640065
OpenAlexW2114674005

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.