Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26615981›Full record

ArticleNMR in biomedicine2016

Degeneracy in model parameter estimation for multi-compartmental diffusion in neuronal tissue.

Ileana O Jelescu, Jelle Veraart, Els Fieremans, Dmitry S Novikov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NMR in biomedicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 184 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
184citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

184 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

124 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Ileana O JelescuCenter for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3664-0195
Jelle VeraartCenter for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Els FieremansCenter for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Dmitry S NovikovCenter for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

PSYCHOSOCIAL COREP30AG008051 · NIA · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI SHAO, YONGZHAO · 1990 to 2019
$36.1M
TR&D 4: Revealing Microstructure: Biophysical modeling and validation for discovery and clinical careP41EB017183 · NIBIB · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI Hersh Chandarana · 2014 to 2026
$19.3M
Mesoscopic Biomarkers of Neurodegeneration with Diffusion MRIR01NS088040 · NINDS · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI FIEREMANS, ELS, NOVIKOV, DMITRY S · 2014 to 2023
$5.2M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG008051NIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB017183NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS088040
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ultimate promise of diffusion MRI (dMRI) models is specificity to neuronal microstructure, which may lead to distinct clinical biomarkers using noninvasive imaging. While multi-compartment models are a common approach to interpret water diffusion in the brain in vivo, the estimation of their parameters from the dMRI signal remains an unresolved problem. Practically, even when q space is highly oversampled, nonlinear fit outputs suffer from heavy bias and poor precision. So far, this has been alleviated by fixing some of the model parameters to a priori values, for improved precision at the expense of accuracy. Here we use a representative two-compartment model to show that fitting fails to determine the five model parameters from over 60 measurement points. For the first time, we identify the reasons for this poor performance. The first reason is the existence of two local minima in the parameter space for the objective function of the fitting procedure. These minima correspond to qualitatively different sets of parameters, yet they both lie within biophysically plausible ranges. We show that, at realistic signal-to-noise ratio values, choosing between the two minima based on the associated objective function values is essentially impossible. Second, there is an ensemble of very low objective function values around each of these minima in the form of a pipe. The existence of such a direction in parameter space, along which the objective function profile is very flat, explains the bias and large uncertainty in parameter estimation, and the spurious parameter correlations: in the presence of noise, the minimum can be randomly displaced by a very large amount along each pipe. Our results suggest that the biophysical interpretation of dMRI model parameters crucially depends on establishing which of the minima is closer to the biophysical reality and the size of the uncertainty associated with each parameter.

Indexed as

AgedDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingFemaleHumansNeuronsbiophysical mechanisms of MR diffusionhigh order diffusion MR methodsmicrostructuremodelingnormal brainparameter estimation

Identifiers

PMID26615981
PMCPMC4920129

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.