ArticleMagma (New York, N.Y.)2021
Comparing multiband and singleband EPI in NODDI at 3 T: what are the implications for reproducibility and study sample sizes?
Article in Magma (New York, N.Y.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- A pilot study on protocol consistency and graph metric reproducibility in microstructure-weighted connectomes.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The Impact of Multiband and In-Plane Acceleration on White Matter Microstructure Analysis.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- Mediating and moderating effects of plasma proteomic biomarkers on the association between poor oral health problems and brain white matter microstructural integrity: the UK Biobank study.Molecular psychiatry · 2025Article
- Observational
- A glimpse into the future: perfusion and diffusion MRI techniques for the assessment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy.European radiology · 2024Article
- Infection burden and its association with neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging markers in the UK Biobank.Brain, behavior, and immunity · 2024Article
- An atlas of white matter anatomy, its variability, and reproducibility based on constrained spherical deconvolution of diffusion MRI.NeuroImage · 2022Article
- Repeatability of neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging in patients with traumatic brain injury.Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of NeuroimagingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe reproducibility of Neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging (NODDI) metrics from time-saving multiband (MB) EPI compared with singleband (SB) has not been considered. This study aims to evaluate the reproducibility of NODDI parameters from SB and MB acquisitions, determine the agreement between acquisitions and estimate the sample sizes required to detect between-group change.
methodsBrain diffusion MRI data were acquired using SB and MB (acceleration factors 2 (MB2) and 3 (MB3)) on 8 healthy subjects on 2 separate visits. NODDI maps of isotropic volume fraction (FISO), neurite density (NDI) and orientation dispersion index (ODI) were estimated. Region-of-interest analysis was performed; variability across subjects and visits was measured using coefficients of variation (CoV). Intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman analysis were performed to assess reproducibility and detect any systematic bias between SB, MB2 and MB3. Power calculations were used to determine sample sizes required to detect group differences.
resultsBoth NDI and ODI were reproducible between visits; however, FISO was variable. All parameters were not reproducible across methods; a systematic bias was observed with the derived values decreasing as the MB factor increases. The number of subjects needed to detect a between-group change is not significantly different between methods; however, ODI needs considerably higher sample sizes than NDI.
conclusionsBoth SB and MB yield highly reproducible NDI and ODI measures, but direct comparison of these parameters between methods is complicated by systematic differences that exist between the two approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.