Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32692999›Full record

ReviewJournal of neuroscience methods2020

Challenges for biophysical modeling of microstructure.

Ileana O Jelescu, Marco Palombo, Francesca Bagnato, Kurt G Schilling

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of neuroscience methods, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 107 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
107citing 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

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

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Widespread alterations in white matter microstructure in autism: A multilevel meta-analysis.Biological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Heterogeneity of white-matter organization in the human brain.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

47 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Ileana O JelescuCenter for Biomedical Imaging, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, EPFL ENT-R CIBM-AIT, Station 6, 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland. Electronic address: ileana.jelescu@epfl.ch.
Marco PalomboCentre for Medical Image Computing and Department of Computer Science, University College London, London, UK.
Francesca BagnatoNeuroimaging Unit, Division of Neuroimmunology, Department of Neurology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Kurt G SchillingRadiology & Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA; Vanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.

Funding

Postdoctoral Training in Biomedical MRI and MRST32EB001628 · NIBIB · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI John C Gore · 2003 to 2026
$7.0M
Controlling Quality and Capturing Uncertainty in Advanced Diffusion Weighted MRIR01EB017230 · NIBIB · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI LANDMAN, BENNETT A. · 2015 to 2024
$5.1M
Medical Research Council MR/T020296/1NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB017230NIBIB NIH HHS T32 EB001628
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The biophysical modeling efforts in diffusion MRI have grown considerably over the past 25 years. In this review, we dwell on the various challenges along the journey of bringing a biophysical model from initial design to clinical implementation, identifying both hurdles that have been already overcome and outstanding issues. First, we describe the critical initial task of selecting which features of tissue microstructure can be estimated using a model and which acquisition protocol needs to be implemented to make the estimation possible. The model performance should necessarily be tested in realistic numerical simulations and in experimental data - adapting the fitting strategy accordingly, and parameter estimates should be validated against complementary techniques, when/if available. Secondly, the model performance and validity should be explored in pathological conditions, and, if appropriate, dedicated models for pathology should be developed. We build on examples from tumors, ischemia and demyelinating diseases. We then discuss the challenges associated with clinical translation and added value. Finally, we single out four major unresolved challenges that are related to: the availability of a microstructural ground truth, the validation of model parameters which cannot be accessed with complementary techniques, the development of a generalized standard model for any brain region and pathology, and the seamless communication between different parties involved in the development and application of biophysical models of diffusion.

Indexed as

BrainDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingBiophysicsDiffusionBiophysical modelsBrain tissueClinical translationDiffusion MRIMicrostructureValidation

Identifiers

PMID32692999
PMCPMC10163379

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.