Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34237442›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2021

On the generalizability of diffusion MRI signal representations across acquisition parameters, sequences and tissue types: Chronicles of the MEMENTO challenge.

Alberto De Luca, Andrada Ianus, Alexander Leemans, Marco Palombo, Noam Shemesh, Hui Zhang, Daniel C Alexander, Markus Nilsson, Martijn Froeling, Geert-Jan Biessels and 32 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

42 authors.

Alberto De LucaPROVIDI Lab, Image Sciences Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Department of Neurology, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: a.deluca-2@umcutrecht.nl.
Andrada IanusChampalimaud Research, Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown, Lisbon, Portugal.
Alexander LeemansPROVIDI Lab, Image Sciences Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Marco PalomboCentre for Medical Image Computing, Department of Computer Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Noam ShemeshChampalimaud Research, Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown, Lisbon, Portugal.
Hui ZhangCentre for Medical Image Computing, Department of Computer Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Daniel C AlexanderCentre for Medical Image Computing, Department of Computer Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Markus NilssonClinical Sciences Lund, Radiology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Martijn FroelingDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Geert-Jan BiesselsDepartment of Neurology, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Mauro ZucchelliInria Sophia Antipolis - Méditerranée, Université Côte d'Azur, Sophia Antipolis, France.
Matteo FrigoInria Sophia Antipolis - Méditerranée, Université Côte d'Azur, Sophia Antipolis, France.
Enes AlbayInria Sophia Antipolis - Méditerranée, Université Côte d'Azur, Sophia Antipolis, France; Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Sara SedlarInria Sophia Antipolis - Méditerranée, Université Côte d'Azur, Sophia Antipolis, France.
Abib AlimiInria Sophia Antipolis - Méditerranée, Université Côte d'Azur, Sophia Antipolis, France.
Samuel Deslauriers-GauthierInria Sophia Antipolis - Méditerranée, Université Côte d'Azur, Sophia Antipolis, France.
Rachid DericheInria Sophia Antipolis - Méditerranée, Université Côte d'Azur, Sophia Antipolis, France.
Rutger FickTRIBVN Healthcare, Paris, France.
Maryam AfzaliCardiff University Brain Research, Imaging Centre (CUBRIC), School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Tomasz PieciakAGH University of Science and Technology, Kraków, Poland; LPI, ETSI Telecomunicación, Universidad de Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain.
Fabian BoguszAGH University of Science and Technology, Kraków, Poland.
Santiago Aja-FernándezLPI, ETSI Telecomunicación, Universidad de Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain.
Evren ÖzarslanDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden; Center for Medical Image Science and Visualization, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Derek K JonesCardiff University Brain Research, Imaging Centre (CUBRIC), School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Haoze ChenSchool of Instruments and Electronics, North University of China, Taiyuan, China.
Mingwu JinDepartment of Physics, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, USA.
Zhijie ZhangSchool of Instruments and Electronics, North University of China, Taiyuan, China.
Fengxiang WangSchool of Instruments and Electronics, North University of China, Taiyuan, China.
Vishwesh NathNVIDIA Corporation, Bethesda, USA.
Prasanna ParvathaneniNational Institute of Health, Bethesda, USA.
Jan MorezImec-Vision lab, Department of Physics, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Jan SijbersImec-Vision lab, Department of Physics, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Ben JeurissenImec-Vision lab, Department of Physics, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Shreyas FadnavisIntelligent Systems Engineering, Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana, USA.
Stefan EndresLeibniz Institute for Materials Engineering - IWT, Faculty of Production Engineering, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
Ariel RokemDepartment of Psychology and the eScience Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA USA.
Eleftherios GaryfallidisIntelligent Systems Engineering, Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana, USA.
Irina SanchezQMENTA Inc, Boston, USA.
Vesna PrchkovskaQMENTA Inc, Boston, USA.
Paulo RodriguesQMENTA Inc, Boston, USA.
Bennet A LandmanVanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA.
Kurt G SchillingVanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA; Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, USA.

Funding

CRCNS: Community-supported open-source software for computational neuroanatomyR01EB027585 · NIBIB · TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY · PI Eleftherios Garyfallidis · 2018 to 2026
$2.6M
Medical Research Council MR/T020296/1NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB027585Wellcome Trust 096646Wellcome Trust 096646/Z/11/ZWellcome Trust 104943Wellcome Trust 104943/Z/14/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diffusion MRI (dMRI) has become an invaluable tool to assess the microstructural organization of brain tissue. Depending on the specific acquisition settings, the dMRI signal encodes specific properties of the underlying diffusion process. In the last two decades, several signal representations have been proposed to fit the dMRI signal and decode such properties. Most methods, however, are tested and developed on a limited amount of data, and their applicability to other acquisition schemes remains unknown. With this work, we aimed to shed light on the generalizability of existing dMRI signal representations to different diffusion encoding parameters and brain tissue types. To this end, we organized a community challenge - named MEMENTO, making available the same datasets for fair comparisons across algorithms and techniques. We considered two state-of-the-art diffusion datasets, including single-diffusion-encoding (SDE) spin-echo data from a human brain with over 3820 unique diffusion weightings (the MASSIVE dataset), and double (oscillating) diffusion encoding data (DDE/DODE) of a mouse brain including over 2520 unique data points. A subset of the data sampled in 5 different voxels was openly distributed, and the challenge participants were asked to predict the remaining part of the data. After one year, eight participant teams submitted a total of 80 signal fits. For each submission, we evaluated the mean squared error, the variance of the prediction error and the Bayesian information criteria. The received submissions predicted either multi-shell SDE data (37%) or DODE data (22%), followed by cartesian SDE data (19%) and DDE (18%). Most submissions predicted the signals measured with SDE remarkably well, with the exception of low and very strong diffusion weightings. The prediction of DDE and DODE data seemed more challenging, likely because none of the submissions explicitly accounted for diffusion time and frequency. Next to the choice of the model, decisions on fit procedure and hyperparameters play a major role in the prediction performance, highlighting the importance of optimizing and reporting such choices. This work is a community effort to highlight strength and limitations of the field at representing dMRI acquired with trending encoding schemes, gaining insights into how different models generalize to different tissue types and fiber configurations over a large range of diffusion encodings.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualNeural Networks, ComputerAnimalsBrainDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMice

Identifiers

PMID34237442
PMCPMC7615259

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.