ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2021
Validating pore size estimates in a complex microfiber environment on a human MRI system.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pore size estimation in axon-mimicking microfibers with diffusion-relaxation MRI.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2024Article
- Estimating axon radius using diffusion-relaxation MRI: calibrating a surface-based relaxation model with histology.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- The interindividual variability of multimodal brain connectivity maintains spatial heterogeneity and relates to tissue microstructure.Communications biology · 2022Article
- Mapping the human connectome using diffusion MRI at 300 mT/m gradient strength: Methodological advances and scientific impact.NeuroImage · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeRecent advances in diffusion-weighted MRI provide "restricted diffusion signal fraction" and restricting pore size estimates. Materials based on co-electrospun oriented hollow cylinders have been introduced to provide validation for such methods. This study extends this work, exploring accuracy and repeatability using an extended acquisition on a 300 mT/m gradient human MRI scanner, in substrates closely mimicking tissue, that is, non-circular cross-sections, intra-voxel fiber crossing, intra-voxel distributions of pore-sizes, and smaller pore-sizes overall.
methodsIn a single-blind experiment, diffusion-weighted data were collected from a biomimetic phantom on a 3T Connectom system using multiple gradient directions/diffusion times. Repeated scans established short-term and long-term repeatability. The total scan time (54 min) matched similar protocols used in human studies. The number of distinct fiber populations was estimated using spherical deconvolution, and median pore size estimated through the combination of CHARMED and AxCaliber3D framework. Diffusion-based estimates were compared with measurements derived from scanning electron microscopy.
resultsThe phantom contained substrates with different orientations, fiber configurations, and pore size distributions. Irrespective of one or two populations within the voxel, the pore-size estimates (~5 μm) and orientation-estimates showed excellent agreement with the median values of pore-size derived from scanning electron microscope and phantom configuration. Measurement repeatability depended on substrate complexity, with lower values seen in samples containing crossing-fibers. Sample-level repeatability was found to be good.
conclusionWhile no phantom mimics tissue completely, this study takes a step closer to validating diffusion microstructure measurements for use in vivo by demonstrating the ability to quantify microgeometry in relatively complex configurations.
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.