Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29091341›Full record

ArticleHuman brain mapping2018

Four in vivo g-ratio-weighted imaging methods: Comparability and repeatability at the group level.

Isabel Ellerbrock, Siawoosh Mohammadi

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Human brain mapping, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Isabel EllerbrockDepartment of Systems Neuroscience, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8892-0463
Siawoosh MohammadiDepartment of Systems Neuroscience, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A recent method, denoted in vivo g-ratio-weighted imaging, has related the microscopic g-ratio, only accessible by ex vivo histology, to noninvasive MRI markers for the fiber volume fraction (FVF) and myelin volume fraction (MVF). Different MRI markers have been proposed for g-ratio weighted imaging, leaving open the question which combination of imaging markers is optimal. To address this question, the repeatability and comparability of four g-ratio methods based on different combinations of, respectively, two imaging markers for FVF (tract-fiber density, TFD, and neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging, NODDI) and two imaging markers for MVF (magnetization transfer saturation rate, MT, and, from proton density maps, macromolecular tissue volume, MTV) were tested in a scan-rescan experiment in two groups. Moreover, it was tested how the repeatability and comparability were affected by two key processing steps, namely the masking of unreliable voxels (e.g., due to partial volume effects) at the group level and the calibration value used to link MRI markers to MVF (and FVF). Our data showed that repeatability and comparability depend largely on the marker for the FVF (NODDI outperformed TFD), and that they were improved by masking. Overall, the g-ratio method based on NODDI and MT showed the highest repeatability (90%) and lowest variability between groups (3.5%). Finally, our results indicate that the calibration procedure is crucial, for example, calibration to a lower g-ratio value (g = 0.6) than the commonly used one (g = 0.7) can change not only repeatability and comparability but also the reported dependency on the FVF imaging marker. Hum Brain Mapp 39:24-41, 2018. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Indexed as

AdultBrainBrain MappingCalibrationFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMalePyramidal TractsReproducibility of ResultsWhite MatterYoung Adultcomparabilitydiffusion-weighted imagingg-ratiomultiparameter mappingrepeatability

Identifiers

PMID29091341
PMCPMC6866374

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.