Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30394561›Full record

ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2019

Evaluating corrections for Eddy-currents and other EPI distortions in diffusion MRI: methodology and a dataset for benchmarking.

M Okan Irfanoglu, Joelle Sarlls, Amritha Nayak, Carlo Pierpaoli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Evaluating Reproducibility of the ADC and Distortion in Diffusion-weighted Imaging (DWI) with Reverse Encoding Distortion Correction (RDC).Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2025
    Article
  4. Processing, evaluating, and understanding FMRI data with afni_proc.py.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

4 authors.

M Okan IrfanogluQuantitative Medical Imaging Section, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Joelle SarllsNIH MRI Research Facility, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Amritha NayakQuantitative Medical Imaging Section, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Carlo PierpaoliQuantitative Medical Imaging Section, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.

Funding

Processing and Analysis of Quantitative Diffusion MRI DataZIHEB000088 · NIBIB · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BIOMEDICAL IMAGING AND BIOENGINEERING · PI PIERPAOLI, CARLO · 2017 to 2022
$4.5M
NIBIB NICHD and NINDS of NIH or Department of Defense, Henry Jackson Foundation W81XWH-13-2-0019NIBIB, NICHD and NINDS of NIH or Department of Defense, Henry Jackson Foundation W81XWH-13-2-0019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo propose a methodology for assessment of algorithms that correct distortions due to motion, eddy-currents, and echo planar imaging in diffusion weighted images (DWIs).

methodsThe proposed method evaluates correction performance by measuring variability across datasets of the same object acquired with images having distortions in different directions, thereby overcoming the unavailability of ground-truth, undistorted DWIs. A comprehensive diffusion MRI dataset, collected using a suitable experimental design, is made available to the scientific community, consisting of three DWI shells (Bmax = 5000 s/mm

resultsThe median variability of the original distorted data was 123% higher for DWIs, 100-168% higher for tensor-derived metrics and 28-111% higher for MAPMRI metrics, than in the corrected versions. EPI distortions induced substantial variability, nearly comparable to the contribution of eddy-current distortions.

conclusionsThe dataset and the evaluation strategy proposed herein enable quantitative comparison of different methods for correction of distortions due to motion, eddy-currents, and other EPI distortions, and can be useful in benchmarking newly developed algorithms.

Indexed as

Diffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingEcho-Planar ImagingAlgorithmsAnisotropyArtifactsBrainDatabases, FactualHeadHumansImage EnhancementImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMotionProbabilityReproducibility of Resultsdiffusion MRIdistortion correctioneddy-currentsEPI

Identifiers

PMID30394561
PMCPMC6518940

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.