Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28438712›Full record

ArticleMagnetic resonance imaging2017

Empirical consideration of the effects of acquisition parameters and analysis model on clinically feasible q-ball imaging.

Kurt G Schilling, Vishwesh Nath, Justin A Blaber, Prasanna Parvathaneni, Adam W Anderson, Bennett A Landman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Magnetic resonance imaging, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Kurt G SchillingBiomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA; Vanderbilt University, Institute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA. Electronic address: kurt.g.schilling@vanderbilt.edu.
Vishwesh NathComputer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.
Justin A BlaberComputer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.
Prasanna ParvathaneniComputer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA; Electrical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.
Adam W AndersonBiomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA; Vanderbilt University, Institute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.
Bennett A LandmanBiomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA; Vanderbilt University, Institute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA; Computer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA; Electrical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.

Funding

VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY CTSA FOR PEDIATRIC RESEARCHUL1RR024975 · NCRR · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI BERNARD, GORDON RAPHAEL · 2007 to 2011
$45.7M
The Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (VICTR)UL1TR000445 · NCATS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI BERNARD, GORDON RAPHAEL · 2012 to 2016
$41.4M
Controlling Quality and Capturing Uncertainty in Advanced Diffusion Weighted MRIR01EB017230 · NIBIB · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI LANDMAN, BENNETT A. · 2015 to 2024
$5.1M
The Biological Basis of Diffusion MRI of the BrainR01NS058639 · NINDS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI ANDERSON, ADAM W · 2008 to 2016
$3.7M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000445NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024975NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB017230NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS058639
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Q-ball imaging (QBI) is a popular high angular resolution diffusion imaging (HARDI) technique used to study brain architecture in vivo. Simulation and phantom-based studies suggest that QBI results are affected by the b-value, the number of diffusion weighting directions, and the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). However, optimal acquisition schemes for QBI in clinical settings are largely undetermined given empirical (observed) imaging considerations. In this study, we acquire a HARDI dataset at five b-values with 11 repetitions on a single subject to investigate the effects of acquisition scheme and subsequent analysis models on the accuracy and precision of measures of tissue composition and fiber orientation derived from clinically feasible QBI at 3T. Clinical feasibility entails short scan protocols - less than 5minutes in the current study - resulting in lower SNR, lower b-values, and fewer diffusion directions than are typical in most QBI protocols with research applications, where time constraints are less prevalent. In agreement with previous studies, we find that the b-value and number of diffusion directions impact the magnitude and variation of QBI indices in both white matter and gray matter regions; however, QBI indices are most heavily dependent on the maximum order of the spherical harmonic (SH) series used to represent the diffusion orientation distribution function (ODF). Specifically, to ensure numerical stability and reduce the occurrence of false peaks and inflated anisotropy, we recommend oversampling by at least 8-12 more diffusion directions than the number of estimated coefficients for a given SH order. In addition, in an equal scan time comparison of QBI accuracy, we find that increasing the directional resolution of the HARDI dataset is preferable to repeating observations; however, our results indicate that as few as 32 directions at a low b-value (1000s/mm

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAnisotropyBrainDiffusionHumansPhantoms, ImagingSignal-To-Noise RatioWhite Matter

Identifiers

PMID28438712
PMCPMC5500983

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.