Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32701224›Full record

ArticleNMR in biomedicine2020

Untangling the diffusion signal using the phasor transform.

Michael J van Rijssel, Martijn Froeling, Astrid L H M W van Lier, Joost J C Verhoeff, Josien P W Pluim

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NMR in biomedicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Michael J van RijsselCenter for Image Sciences, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2365-4408
Martijn FroelingCenter for Image Sciences, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3841-0497
Astrid L H M W van LierCenter for Image Sciences, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2150-9776
Joost J C VerhoeffCenter for Image Sciences, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9673-0793
Josien P W PluimCenter for Image Sciences, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Utrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Separating the decay signal from diffusion-weighted scans into two or more components can be challenging. The phasor technique is well established in the field of optical microscopy for visualization and separation of fluorescent dyes with different lifetimes. The use of the phasor technique for separation of diffusion-weighted decay signals was recently proposed. In this study, we investigate the added value of this technique for fitting decay models and visualization of decay rates. Phasor visualization was performed in five glioblastoma patients. Using simulations, the influence of incorrect diffusivity values and of the number of b-values on fitting a three-component model with fixed diffusivities (dubbed "unmixing") was investigated for both a phasor-based fit and a linear least squares (LLS) fit. Phasor-based intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) fitting was compared with nonlinear least squares (NLLS) and segmented fitting (SF) methods in terms of accuracy and precision. The distributions of the parameter estimates of simulated data were compared with those obtained in a healthy volunteer. In the phasor visualizations of two glioblastoma patients, a cluster of points was observed that was not seen in healthy volunteers. The identified cluster roughly corresponded to the enhanced edge region of the tumor of two glioblastoma patients visible on fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) images. For fitting decay models the usefulness of the phasor transform is less pronounced, but the additional knowledge gained from the geometrical configuration of phasor space can aid fitting routines. This has led to slightly improved fitting results for the IVIM model: phasor-based fitting yielded parameter maps with higher precision than the NLLS and SF methods for parameters f and D (interquartile range [IQR] for f: NLLS 27, SF 12, phasor 5.7%; IQR for D: NLLS 0.28, SF 0.18, phasor 0.10 μm

Indexed as

AlgorithmsDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingSignal Processing, Computer-AssistedAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMotionPhantoms, ImagingProbabilitydiffusion fraction estimationdiffusion modelingintravoxel incoherent motionmulti-compartment diffusion modelingphasor representationtissue characterization

Identifiers

PMID32701224
PMCPMC7685171
OpenAlexW3043866298

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.