ArticleNeuroradiology2014
Reproducibility of diffusion tensor imaging in normal subjects: an evaluation of different gradient sampling schemes and registration algorithm.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Denoising Improves Cross-Scanner and Cross-Protocol Test-Retest Reproducibility of Diffusion Tensor and Kurtosis Imaging.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- Down-sampling in diffusion MRI: a bundle-specific DTI and NODDI study.Frontiers in neuroimaging · 2024Article
- Validation of cross-sectional and longitudinal ComBat harmonization methods for magnetic resonance imaging data on a travelling subject cohort.Neuroimage. Reports · 2022Article
- Reproducibility, reliability and variability of FA and MD in the older healthy population: A test-retest multiparametric analysis.NeuroImage. Clinical · 2020Article
- Associations between modifiable risk factors and white matter of the aging brain: insights from diffusion tensor imaging studies.Neurobiology of aging · 2019Review
- CanBrain communications · 2019Article
- White matter changes in patients with mild traumatic brain injury: MRI perspective.Concussion (London, England) · 2017Review
- A Comparative evaluation of voxel-based spatial mapping in diffusion tensor imaging.NeuroImage · 2017Article
- Tractography-Based Ventral Intermediate Nucleus Targeting: Novel Methodology and Intraoperative Validation.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2016Article
- Assessing Region of Interest Schemes for the Corticospinal Tract in Patients With Brain Tumors.Medicine · 2016Article
- Article
- Quantitative assessment of diffusional kurtosis anisotropy.NMR in biomedicine · 2015Article
- Renal water molecular diffusion characteristics in healthy native kidneys: assessment with diffusion tensor MR imaging.PloS one · 2014Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDiffusion tensor imaging (DTI) is very useful for investigating white matter integrity in ageing and neurological disorders; thus, evaluating its reproducibility under different acquisition protocols and analysis methods may assist in the design of clinical studies.
methodsTo measure the reproducibility of DTI in normal subjects, this study include (1) depicting the reproducibility of DTI measurements in commonly used regions-of-interest analysis by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CV), (2) evaluating and comparing inter and intrasession test-retest reproducibility, and (3) illustrating the effect of the number of diffusion-encoding directions (NDED) and registration algorithms on measurement reproducibility.
resultsDTI measurements exhibit high reproducibility, with overall (430/480) ICC ≥ 0.70, (478/480) within-subject CV (CVws) ≤10.00 % and between-subject CV (CVbs) ranging from 1.32 to 13.63 %. Repeated measures ANOVAs and paired t tests were conducted to compare inter and intrasession reproducibility with different diffusion sampling schemes and registration algorithms. Our results also confirmed that increasing the NDED could improve the accuracy and reproducibility of DTI measurements. In addition, we compared reproducibility indices that were derived using different registration algorithms, and a tensor-based deformable registration yielded the most reproducible results. Finally, we found that increasing the NDED could reduce the difference between the reproducibility of measurement derived using different registration algorithms and between the reproducibility of intersession and intrasession.
conclusionOur results suggest that the choice of DTI acquisition protocol and post-processing methods can influence the accurate estimation and reproducibility of DTI measurements and should be considered carefully for clinical applications.
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.