Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25172990›Full record

ArticleMagnetic resonance imaging2015

A simple noise correction scheme for diffusional kurtosis imaging.

G Russell Glenn, Ali Tabesh, Jens H Jensen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Magnetic resonance imaging, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Diffusion MRI noise mapping using random matrix theory.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2016
    Article
  19. Gibbs ringing in diffusion MRI.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2016
    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

3 authors.

G Russell GlennCenter for Biomedical Imaging, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA; Department of Neurosciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. Electronic address: glenng@musc.edu.
Ali TabeshCenter for Biomedical Imaging, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA; Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Jens H JensenCenter for Biomedical Imaging, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA; Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.

Funding

South Carolina Clinical & Translational Research Institute (SCTR)UL1TR000062 · NCATS · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI BRADY, KATHLEEN T. · 2012 to 2014
$9.4M
TRAINING PROGRAM FOR MEDICAL SCIENTISTST32GM008716 · NIGMS · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI DEMORE, NANCY · 1999 to 2024
$9.3M
South Carolina Clinical & Translational Research Institute (SCTR)TL1TR000061 · NCATS · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI BRADY, KATHLEEN T. · 2012 to 2014
$483k
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR000061NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000062NIGMS NIH HHS 5T32 GM08716NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM008716
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDiffusional kurtosis imaging (DKI) is sensitive to the effects of signal noise due to strong diffusion weightings and higher order modeling of the diffusion weighted signal. A simple noise correction scheme is proposed to remove the majority of the noise bias in the estimated diffusional kurtosis.

methodsWeighted linear least squares (WLLS) fitting together with a voxel-wise, subtraction-based noise correction from multiple, independent acquisitions are employed to reduce noise bias in DKI data. The method is validated in phantom experiments and demonstrated for in vivo human brain for DKI-derived parameter estimates.

resultsAs long as the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for the most heavily diffusion weighted images is greater than 2.1, errors in phantom diffusional kurtosis estimates are found to be less than 5 percent with noise correction, but as high as 44 percent for uncorrected estimates. In human brain, noise correction is also shown to improve diffusional kurtosis estimates derived from measurements made with low SNR.

conclusionThe proposed correction technique removes the majority of noise bias from diffusional kurtosis estimates in noisy phantom data and is applicable to DKI of human brain. Features of the method include computational simplicity and ease of integration into standard WLLS DKI post-processing algorithms.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ImagingDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingBrainBrain MappingComputer SimulationHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedLeast-Squares AnalysisPhantoms, ImagingReproducibility of ResultsSignal Processing, Computer-AssistedSignal-To-Noise RatioSubtraction TechniqueBrainDiffusionKurtosisNoisePhantomRician

Identifiers

PMID25172990
PMCPMC4268031

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.