Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23988782›Full record

ArticleMagnetic resonance imaging2013

Comparison of mouse brain DTI maps using K-space average, image-space average, or no average approach.

Shu-Wei Sun, Jennifer Mei, Keelan Tuel

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Magnetic resonance imaging, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Shu-Wei SunBasic Science, School of Medicine, Loma Linda University, CA; Radiation Medicine, School of Medicine, Loma Linda University, CA; Pharmaceutical Science, School of Pharmacy, Loma Linda University, CA; Bioengineering, University of California, Riverside, CA. Electronic address: rsun@llu.edu.
Jennifer Mei
Keelan Tuel

Funding

Understanding neuronal and axonal degeneration in a murine model of human MSR01NS062830 · NINDS · LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY · PI SUN, SHU-WEI · 2011 to 2014
$1.3M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS062830
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) is achieved by collecting a series of diffusion-weighted images (DWIs). Signal averaging of multiple repetitions can be performed in the k-space (k-avg) or in the image space (m-avg) to improve the image quality. Alternatively, one can treat each acquisition as an independent image and use all of the data to reconstruct the DTI without doing any signal averaging (no-avg). To compare these three approaches, in this study, in vivo DTI data were collected from five normal mice. Noisy data with signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) that varied between five and 30 (before averaging) were then simulated. The DTI indices, including relative anisotropy (RA), trace of diffusion tensor (TR), axial diffusivity (λ║), and radial diffusivity (λ⊥), derived from the k-avg, m-avg, and no-avg, were then compared in the corpus callosum white matter, cortex gray matter, and the ventricles. We found that k-avg and m-avg enhanced the SNR of DWI with no significant differences. However, k-avg produced lower RA in the white matter and higher RA in the gray matter, compared to the m-avg and no-avg, regardless of SNR. The latter two produced similar DTI quantifications. We concluded that k-avg is less preferred for DTI brain imaging.

Indexed as

Diffusion Tensor ImagingImage Processing, Computer-AssistedAlgorithmsAnimalsAnisotropyBrainDiffusionFemaleFourier AnalysisMagnetic Resonance ImagingMiceMice, Inbred C57BLNormal DistributionSignal-To-Noise RatioDTI reconstructionImage-space averageIn vivo DTIk-space averageMouse brain

Identifiers

PMID23988782
PMCPMC3904870

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.