Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30294704›Full record

ArticleNetwork neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2018

Effect of different spatial normalization approaches on tractography and structural brain networks.

Clint Greene, Matt Cieslak, Scott T Grafton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Network neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

3 authors.

Clint GreeneSignal Compression Lab, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA.
Matt CieslakAction Lab, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA.
Scott T GraftonAction Lab, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To facilitate the comparison of white matter morphologic connectivity across target populations, it is invaluable to map the data to a standardized neuroanatomical space. Here, we evaluated direct streamline normalization (DSN), where the warping was applied directly to the streamlines, with two publically available approaches that spatially normalize the diffusion data and then reconstruct the streamlines. Prior work has shown that streamlines generated after normalization from reoriented diffusion data do not reliably match the streamlines generated in native space. To test the impact of these different normalization methods on quantitative tractography measures, we compared the reproducibility of the resulting normalized connectivity matrices and network metrics with those originally obtained in native space. The two methods that reconstruct streamlines after normalization led to significant differences in network metrics with large to huge standardized effect sizes, reflecting a dramatic alteration of the same subject's native connectivity. In contrast, after normalizing with DSN we found no significant difference in network metrics compared with native space with only very small-to-small standardized effect sizes. DSN readily outperformed the other methods at preserving native space connectivity and introduced novel opportunities to define connectome networks without relying on gray matter parcellations.

Indexed as

Brain networksConnectomesDiffusion MRISpatial normalizationTractography

Identifiers

PMID30294704
PMCPMC6145854

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.