Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27041679›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2016

Kurtosis fractional anisotropy, its contrast and estimation by proxy.

Brian Hansen, Sune Nørhøj Jespersen

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing 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

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  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. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Brian HansenCenter of Functionally Integrative Neuroscience (CFIN), Clinical Institute, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Sune Nørhøj JespersenCenter of Functionally Integrative Neuroscience (CFIN), Clinical Institute, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.

Funding

Development of MR Microscopy at the Cellular LevelR01EB012874 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI BLACKBAND, STEPHEN J. · 2010 to 2013
$2.1M
NIBIB NIH HHS 1R01EB012874-01NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB012874
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The diffusion kurtosis observed with diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI) may vary with direction. This directional variation is summarized in the scalar kurtosis fractional anisotropy (KFA). Recent studies suggest that kurtosis anisotropy offers microstructural contrast not contained in other commonly used dMRI markers. We compare KFA to other dMRI contrasts in fixed rat brain and in human brain. We then investigate the observed contrast differences using data obtained in a physical phantom and simulations based on data from the phantom, rat spinal cord, and human brain. Lastly, we assess a strategy for rapid estimation of a computationally modest KFA proxy by evaluating its correlation to true KFA for varying number of sampling directions and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) levels. We also map this proxy's b-value dependency. We find that KFA supplements the contrast of other dMRI metrics - particularly fractional anisotropy (FA) which vanishes in near orthogonal fiber arrangements where KFA does not. Simulations and phantom data support this interpretation. KFA therefore supplements FA and could be useful for evaluation of complex tissue arrangements. The KFA proxy is strongly correlated to true KFA when sampling is performed along at least nine directions and SNR is high.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnisotropyBrainDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingDiffusion Tensor ImagingHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedPhantoms, ImagingRatsSpinal Cord

Identifiers

PMID27041679
PMCPMC4819179

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.