Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31611542›Full record

ArticleMagnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine2020

Impact of b-Value Sampling Scheme on Brain IVIM Parameter Estimation in Healthy Subjects.

Stéren Chabert, Jorge Verdu, Gamaliel Huerta, Cristian Montalba, Pablo Cox, Rodrigo Riveros, Sergio Uribe, Rodrigo Salas, Alejandro Veloz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Differentiating Brain Metastasis and High-Grade Glioma Using Multi-b Value Diffusion MRI and Tumor Volumetry.Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging
    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

9 authors.

Stéren ChabertCINGS Centro de Investigación y Desarrollo de Ingeniería para la Salud, Universidad de Valparaíso.
Jorge VerduEscuela de Ingenieria Civil Biomedica, Universidad de Valparaíso.
Gamaliel HuertaEscuela de Ingenieria Civil Biomedica, Universidad de Valparaíso.
Cristian MontalbaCenter for Biomedical Imaging, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile.
Pablo CoxServicio de Imagenología, Hospital Carlos van Buren.
Rodrigo RiverosServicio de Imagenología, Hospital Carlos van Buren.
Sergio UribeMillennium Nucleus for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.
Rodrigo SalasCINGS Centro de Investigación y Desarrollo de Ingeniería para la Salud, Universidad de Valparaíso.
Alejandro VelozCINGS Centro de Investigación y Desarrollo de Ingeniería para la Salud, Universidad de Valparaíso.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIntravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) analysis has attracted the interest of the clinical community due to its close relationship with microperfusion. Nevertheless, there is no clear reference protocol for its implementation; one of the questions being which b-value distribution to use. This study aimed to stress the importance of the sampling scheme and to show that an optimized b-value distribution decreases the variance associated with IVIM parameters in the brain with respect to a regular distribution in healthy volunteers.

methodsTen volunteers were included in this study; images were acquired on a 1.5T MR scanner. Two distributions of 16 b-values were used: one considered 'regular' due to its close association with that used in other studies, and the other considered 'optimized' according to previous studies. IVIM parameters were adjusted according to the bi-exponential model, using two-step method. Analysis was undertaken in ROI defined using in the Automated Anatomical Labeling atlas, and parameters distributions were compared in a total of 832 ROI.

resultsMaps with fewer speckles were obtained with the 'optimized' distribution. Coefficients of variation did not change significantly for the estimation of the diffusion coefficient D but decreased by approximately 39% for the pseudo-diffusion coefficient estimation and by 21% for the perfusion fraction. Distributions of adjusted parameters were found significantly different in 50% of the cases for the perfusion fraction, in 80% of the cases for the pseudo-diffusion coefficient and 17% of the cases for the diffusion coefficient. Observations across brain areas show that the range of average values for IVIM parameters is smaller in the 'optimized' case.

conclusionUsing an optimized distribution, data are sampled in a way that the IVIM signal decay is better described and less variance is obtained in the fitted parameters. The increased precision gained could help to detect small variations in IVIM parameters.

Indexed as

BrainDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMovementbraindiffusion magnetic resonance imagingintravoxel incoherent motionneuroimaging

Identifiers

PMID31611542
PMCPMC7553810

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.