Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31090254›Full record

ArticleHuman brain mapping2019

Evaluation of the 3D fractal dimension as a marker of structural brain complexity in multiple-acquisition MRI.

Stephan Krohn, Martijn Froeling, Alexander Leemans, Dirk Ostwald, Pablo Villoslada, Carsten Finke, Francisco J Esteban

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human brain mapping, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Artificial Intelligence in Brain Tumors.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

7 authors.

Stephan KrohnDepartment of Neurology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0683-5386
Martijn FroelingDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Alexander LeemansImage Sciences Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Dirk OstwaldComputational Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Pablo VillosladaCenter of Neuroimmunology, Institut d'Investigacions Biomediques August Pi Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain.
Carsten FinkeDepartment of Neurology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7665-1171
Francisco J EstebanSystems Biology Unit, Department of Experimental Biology, Universidad de Jaén, Jaén, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-7135-2973

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 13GW0206DConsejería de Economía, Innovación, Ciencia y Empleo, Junta de Andalucía BIO-302MEIC Systems Medicine Excellence Network SAF2015-70270-REDTNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek VIDI Grant 639.072.411
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fractal analysis represents a promising new approach to structural neuroimaging data, yet systematic evaluation of the fractal dimension (FD) as a marker of structural brain complexity is scarce. Here we present in-depth methodological assessment of FD estimation in structural brain MRI. On the computational side, we show that spatial scale optimization can significantly improve FD estimation accuracy, as suggested by simulation studies with known FD values. For empirical evaluation, we analyzed two recent open-access neuroimaging data sets (MASSIVE and Midnight Scan Club), stratified by fundamental image characteristics including registration, sequence weighting, spatial resolution, segmentation procedures, tissue type, and image complexity. Deviation analyses showed high repeated-acquisition stability of the FD estimates across both data sets, with differential deviation susceptibility according to image characteristics. While less frequently studied in the literature, FD estimation in T2-weighted images yielded robust outcomes. Importantly, we observed a significant impact of image registration on absolute FD estimates. Applying different registration schemes, we found that unbalanced registration induced (a) repeated-measurement deviation clusters around the registration target, (b) strong bidirectional correlations among image analysis groups, and (c) spurious associations between the FD and an index of structural similarity, and these effects were strongly attenuated by reregistration in both data sets. Indeed, differences in FD between scans did not simply track differences in structure per se, suggesting that structural complexity and structural similarity represent distinct aspects of structural brain MRI. In conclusion, scale optimization can improve FD estimation accuracy, and empirical FD estimates are reliable yet sensitive to image characteristics.

Indexed as

BrainDatabases, FactualFractalsHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeuroimagingfractal analysisimaging validationMRI biomarkerstructural brain complexitystructural similarity

Identifiers

PMID31090254
PMCPMC6865657

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.