ArticleNeuroradiology2016
Tensor and non-tensor tractography for the assessment of the corticospinal tract of children with motor disorders: a comparative study.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2016. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reconstructing the somatotopic organization of the corticospinal tract remains a challenge for modern tractography methods.Human brain mapping · 2023Article
- Hyperglycemia associated with acute brain injury in neonatal encephalopathy.NeuroImage. Clinical · 2021Article
- Microstructural integrity of corticospinal and medial lemniscus tracts: insights from diffusion tensor tractography of right-hand amputees.Journal of neurophysiology · 2019Article
- Improvement in White Matter Tract Reconstruction with Constrained Spherical Deconvolution and Track Density Mapping in Low Angular Resolution Data: A Pediatric Study and Literature Review.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNon-invasive measures of corticospinal tract (CST) integrity may help to guide clinical interventions, particularly in children and young people (CAYP) with motor disorders. We compared diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) metrics extracted from the CST generated by tensor and non-tensor based tractography algorithms.
methodsFor a group of 25 CAYP undergoing clinical evaluation, the CST was reconstructed using (1) deterministic tensor-based tractography algorithm, (2) probabilistic tensor-based, and (3) constrained spherical deconvolution (CSD)-derived tractography algorithms.
resultsChoice of tractography algorithm significantly altered the results of tracking. Larger tracts were consistently defined with CSD, with differences in FA but not MD values for tracts to the pre- or post-central gyrus. Differences between deterministic and probabilistic tensor-based algorithms were minimal. Non-tensor reconstructed tracts appeared to be more anatomically representative. Examining metrics along the tract, difference in FA values appeared to be greatest in voxels with predominantly single-fibre orientations. Less pronounced differences were seen outwith of these regions.
conclusionWith an increasing interest in the applications of tractography analysis at all stages of movement disorder surgery, it is important that clinicians remain alert to the consequences of choice of tractography algorithm on subsequently generated tracts, including differences in volumes, anatomical reconstruction, and DTI metrics, the latter of which will have global as well as more regional effects. Tract-wide analysis of DTI based metrics is of limited utility, and a more segmental approach to analysis may be appropriate, particularly if disruption to a focal region of a white matter pathway is anticipated.
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.