Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31860686›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Comparison of quality control methods for automated diffusion tensor imaging analysis pipelines.

Seyyed M H Haddad, Christopher J M Scott, Miracle Ozzoude, Melissa F Holmes, Stephen R Arnott, Nuwan D Nanayakkara, Joel Ramirez, Sandra E Black, Dar Dowlatshahi, Stephen C Strother and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Calibration of MRI-based reference intervals to new samples.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Biomarkers of Muscle.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2024
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

15 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Seyyed M H HaddadCentre for Functional and Metabolic Mapping, Robarts Research Institute, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4566-341X
Christopher J M ScottL.C. Campbell Cognitive Neurology Research Unit, Hurvitz Brain Sciences Research Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Miracle OzzoudeL.C. Campbell Cognitive Neurology Research Unit, Hurvitz Brain Sciences Research Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Melissa F HolmesL.C. Campbell Cognitive Neurology Research Unit, Hurvitz Brain Sciences Research Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Stephen R ArnottRotman Research Institute, Baycrest Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Nuwan D NanayakkaraCentre for Functional and Metabolic Mapping, Robarts Research Institute, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
Joel RamirezL.C. Campbell Cognitive Neurology Research Unit, Hurvitz Brain Sciences Research Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sandra E BlackL.C. Campbell Cognitive Neurology Research Unit, Hurvitz Brain Sciences Research Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Dar DowlatshahiOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Stephen C StrotherRotman Research Institute, Baycrest Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Richard H SwartzDepartment of Medicine, Division of Neurology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sean SymonsDepartment of Medical Imaging, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Manuel Montero-OdassoDepartment of Medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine, Parkwood Hospital, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
ONDRI Investigators
Robert BarthaCentre for Functional and Metabolic Mapping, Robarts Research Institute, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
Sunnybrook Health Science Centre · CAWestern University · CABaycrest Hospital · CAOttawa Hospital · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The processing of brain diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) data for large cohort studies requires fully automatic pipelines to perform quality control (QC) and artifact/outlier removal procedures on the raw DTI data prior to calculation of diffusion parameters. In this study, three automatic DTI processing pipelines, each complying with the general ENIGMA framework, were designed by uniquely combining multiple image processing software tools. Different QC procedures based on the RESTORE algorithm, the DTIPrep protocol, and a combination of both methods were compared using simulated ground truth and artifact containing DTI datasets modeling eddy current induced distortions, various levels of motion artifacts, and thermal noise. Variability was also examined in 20 DTI datasets acquired in subjects with vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) from the multi-site Ontario Neurodegenerative Disease Research Initiative (ONDRI). The mean fractional anisotropy (FA), mean diffusivity (MD), axial diffusivity (AD), and radial diffusivity (RD) were calculated in global brain grey matter (GM) and white matter (WM) regions. For the simulated DTI datasets, the measure used to evaluate the performance of the pipelines was the normalized difference between the mean DTI metrics measured in GM and WM regions and the corresponding ground truth DTI value. The performance of the proposed pipelines was very similar, particularly in FA measurements. However, the pipeline based on the RESTORE algorithm was the most accurate when analyzing the artifact containing DTI datasets. The pipeline that combined the DTIPrep protocol and the RESTORE algorithm produced the lowest standard deviation in FA measurements in normal appearing WM across subjects. We concluded that this pipeline was the most robust and is preferred for automated analysis of multisite brain DTI data.

Indexed as

Quality ControlAgedAged, 80 and overAlgorithmsAnisotropyArtifactsCognitive DysfunctionCohort StudiesDiffusion Tensor ImagingElectronic Data ProcessingFemaleGray MatterHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID31860686
PMCPMC6924651
OpenAlexW2995639855

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.