Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27192379›Full record

ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2016

Quantifying the impact of underlying measurement error on cervical spinal cord diffusion tensor imaging at 3T.

Samantha By, Alex K Smith, Lindsey M Dethrage, Bailey D Lyttle, Bennett A Landman, Jeffrey L Creasy, Siddharama Pawate, Seth A Smith

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Samantha ByDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Alex K SmithDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Lindsey M DethrageVanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2070-6663
Bailey D LyttleVanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Bennett A LandmanDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Jeffrey L CreasyDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Siddharama PawateDepartment of Neurology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Seth A SmithDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Vanderbilt University · US

Funding

Microstructural Characterization of the Optic Nerve in Optic NeuritisR01EY023240 · NEI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI SMITH, SETH A · 2014 to 2017
$1.0M
In Vivo Macromolecular and Protein-Based MRI in the Spinal Cord of MS PatientsR21NS087465 · NINDS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI SMITH, SETH A · 2014 to 2015
$431k
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY023240NINDS NIH HHS R21 NS087465
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo empirically characterize and quantify the impact of gradient weighting schemes on the appearance and fidelity of diffusion tensor imaging of the human spinal cord in vivo in clinically relevant scan time equivalents (STE). MATERIALS AND

methodsIn five healthy controls at 3T, we evaluated test-retest reproducibility and performed voxelwise analysis of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI)-derived indices (fractional anisotropy [FA], mean [MD], axial [AD], and radial [RD] diffusivity) in the cervical spinal cord to assess spatial dependencies of measurement error and differences across three different sampling schemes (6, 15, and 32 directions) at STE of 4.5, 9, and 18 minutes. A subjective assessment was also performed.

resultsWith six directions, column-specific errors are highest (effect size = 2.9%, 4.4%, 7.2% for FA in dorsal column, lateral column, and gray matter) and different than the 15-direction scheme (P < 0.05). STE sequences with 15 and 32 directions exhibited small differences in error (P > 0.05). For FA and AD, measurement errors are prevalent in gray matter, while partial volume effects with cerebrospinal fluid heavily influence RD. Measurement errors decreased with increasing scan time (P < 0.01), albeit with diminishing returns at scan times longer than 9 minutes (P < 0.05).

conclusionA 15-direction scheme of 9 minutes yields measurements of the cervical spinal cord with low error. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;44:1608-1618.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAdultAnisotropyCerebrospinal FluidDiffusion Tensor ImagingFemaleHumansImage EnhancementImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMaleReference ValuesReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySpinal Corddiffusion tensor imagingmagnetic resonance imagingspinal cord

Identifiers

PMID27192379
PMCPMC5116007
OpenAlexW2398144930

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.