ArticleProceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering2018
Evaluation of inter-site bias and variance in diffusion-weighted MRI.
Article in Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Commentary on "Noninvasive assessment of single kidney glomerular filtration rate using multiple diffusion weighted imaging models".Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Article
- Multiparametric MRI for characterization of the tumour microenvironment.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
An understanding of the bias and variance of diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) acquisitions across scanners, study sites, or over time is essential for the incorporation of multiple data sources into a single clinical study. Studies that combine samples from various sites may be introducing confounding due to site-specific artifacts and patterns. Differences in bias and variance across sites may render the scans incomparable, and, without correction, any inferences obtained from these data are misleading. We present an analysis of the bias and variance of scans of the same subjects across different sites and evaluate their impact on statistical analyses. In previous work, we presented a simulation extrapolation (SIMEX) technique for bias estimation as well as a wild bootstrap technique for variance estimation in metrics obtained from a Q-ball imaging (QBI) reconstruction of empirical high angular resolution diffusion imaging (HARDI) data. We now apply those techniques to data acquired from 5 healthy volunteers on 3 independent scanners under closely matched acquisition protocols. The bias and variance of GFA measurements were estimated on a voxel-wise basis for each scan and compared across study sites to identify site-specific differences. Further, we provide model recommendations that can be used to determine the extent of the impact of bias and variance as well as aspects of the analysis to account for these differences. We include a decision tree to help researchers determine if model adjustments are necessary based on the bias and variance results.
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.