ArticleElectronic journal of statistics2013
Diffusion tensor smoothing through weighted Karcher means.
Article in Electronic journal of statistics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- ESTIMATING FIBER ORIENTATION DISTRIBUTION WITH APPLICATION TO STUDY BRAIN LATERALIZATION USING HCP D-MRI DATA.The annals of applied statistics · 2024Article
- Estimating fiber orientation distribution from diffusion MRI with spherical needlets.Medical image analysis · 2018Article
- FIBER DIRECTION ESTIMATION, SMOOTHING AND TRACKING IN DIFFUSION MRI.The annals of applied statistics · 2016Article
- Diffusion tensor smoothing through weighted Karcher means.Electronic journal of statistics · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) quantifies the spatial distribution of water Diffusion at each voxel on a regular grid of locations in a biological specimen by Diffusion tensors- 3 × 3 positive definite matrices. Removal of noise from DTI is an important problem due to the high scientific relevance of DTI and relatively low signal to noise ratio it provides. Leading approaches to this problem amount to estimation of weighted Karcher means of Diffusion tensors within spatial neighborhoods, under various metrics imposed on the space of tensors. However, it is unclear how the behavior of these estimators varies with the magnitude of DTI sensor noise (the noise resulting from the thermal e!ects of MRI scanning) as well as the geometric structure of the underlying Diffusion tensor neighborhoods. In this paper, we combine theoretical analysis, empirical analysis of simulated DTI data, and empirical analysis of real DTI scans to compare the noise removal performance of three kernel-based DTI smoothers that are based on Euclidean, log-Euclidean, and affine-invariant metrics. The results suggest, contrary to conventional wisdom, that imposing a simplistic Euclidean metric may in fact provide comparable or superior noise removal, especially in relatively unstructured regions and/or in the presence of moderate to high levels of sensor noise. On the contrary, log-Euclidean and affine-invariant metrics may lead to better noise removal in highly structured anatomical regions, especially when the sensor noise is of low magnitude. These findings emphasize the importance of considering the interplay of sensor noise magnitude and tensor field geometric structure when assessing Diffusion tensor smoothing options. They also point to the necessity for continued development of smoothing methods that perform well across a large range of scenarios.
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.