ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2014
Noise estimation from averaged diffusion weighted images: Can unbiased quantitative decay parameters assist cancer evaluation?
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimization of the Non-Local Means Algorithm for Breast Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging Using a 3D-Printed Breast-Mimicking Phantom.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Effect of Magnetic Resonance Image Quality on Structural and Functional Brain Connectivity: The Maastricht Study.Brain sciences · 2024Article
- Directional and inter-acquisition variability in diffusion-weighted imaging and editing for restricted diffusion.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2022Article
- Characterization of the diffusion signal of breast tissues using multi-exponential models.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2022Article
- Discrete Shearlets as a Sparsifying Transform in Low-Rank Plus Sparse Decomposition for Undersampled (Journal of imaging · 2022Article
- Quality Comparison of 3 Tesla multiparametric MRI of the prostate using a flexible surface receiver coil versus conventional surface coil plus endorectal coil setup.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2020Article
- Added value of diffusion-weighted imaging for evaluation of extramural venous invasion in patients with primary rectal cancer.The British journal of radiology · 2019Article
- VERDICT-AMICO: Ultrafast fitting algorithm for non-invasive prostate microstructure characterization.NMR in biomedicine · 2019Article
- Quantitative diffusion magnetic resonance imaging in head and neck tumors.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2018Review
- Observational
- Evaluating Instantaneous Perfusion Responses of Parotid Glands to Gustatory Stimulation Using High-Temporal-Resolution Echo-Planar Diffusion-Weighted Imaging.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMultiexponential decay parameters are estimated from diffusion-weighted-imaging that generally have inherently low signal-to-noise ratio and non-normal noise distributions, especially at high b-values. Conventional nonlinear regression algorithms assume normally distributed noise, introducing bias into the calculated decay parameters and potentially affecting their ability to classify tumors. This study aims to accurately estimate noise of averaged diffusion-weighted-imaging, to correct the noise induced bias, and to assess the effect upon cancer classification.
methodsA new adaptation of the median-absolute-deviation technique in the wavelet-domain, using a closed form approximation of convolved probability-distribution-functions, is proposed to estimate noise. Nonlinear regression algorithms that account for the underlying noise (maximum probability) fit the biexponential/stretched exponential decay models to the diffusion-weighted signal. A logistic-regression model was built from the decay parameters to discriminate benign from metastatic neck lymph nodes in 40 patients.
resultsThe adapted median-absolute-deviation method accurately predicted the noise of simulated (R(2) = 0.96) and neck diffusion-weighted-imaging (averaged once or four times). Maximum probability recovers the true apparent-diffusion-coefficient of the simulated data better than nonlinear regression (up to 40%), whereas no apparent differences were found for the other decay parameters.
conclusionsPerfusion-related parameters were best at cancer classification. Noise-corrected decay parameters did not significantly improve classification for the clinical data set though simulations show benefit for lower signal-to-noise ratio acquisitions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.