Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34358660›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2021

Fiber tractography bundle segmentation depends on scanner effects, vendor effects, acquisition resolution, diffusion sampling scheme, diffusion sensitization, and bundle segmentation workflow.

Kurt G Schilling, Chantal M W Tax, Francois Rheault, Colin Hansen, Qi Yang, Fang-Cheng Yeh, Leon Cai, Adam W Anderson, Bennett A Landman

Open access · goldAbstract 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 51 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Spatial image gradient estimation from the diffusion MRI profile.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Kurt G SchillingDepartment of Radiology & Radiological Science, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States; Vanderbilt Institute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States. Electronic address: kurt.g.schilling.1@vumc.org.
Chantal M W TaxCardiff University Brain Research Imaging Centre (CUBRIC), Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Francois RheaultDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States.
Colin HansenDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States.
Qi YangDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States.
Fang-Cheng YehDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, United States.
Leon CaiDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States.
Adam W AndersonDepartment of Radiology & Radiological Science, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States; Vanderbilt Institute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States.
Bennett A LandmanDepartment of Radiology & Radiological Science, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States; Vanderbilt Institute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States; Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States.
Vanderbilt University · USCardiff University · GBUniversity of Pittsburgh · USVanderbilt University Medical Center · US

Funding

VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY CTSA FOR PEDIATRIC RESEARCHUL1RR024975 · NCRR · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI BERNARD, GORDON RAPHAEL · 2007 to 2011
$45.7M
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
NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024975NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB017230NIBIB NIH HHS T32 EB001628Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 215944/Z/19/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When investigating connectivity and microstructure of white matter pathways of the brain using diffusion tractography bundle segmentation, it is important to understand potential confounds and sources of variation in the process. While cross-scanner and cross-protocol effects on diffusion microstructure measures are well described (in particular fractional anisotropy and mean diffusivity), it is unknown how potential sources of variation effect bundle segmentation results, which features of the bundle are most affected, where variability occurs, nor how these sources of variation depend upon the method used to reconstruct and segment bundles. In this study, we investigate six potential sources of variation, or confounds, for bundle segmentation: variation (1) across scan repeats, (2) across scanners, (3) across vendors (4) across acquisition resolution, (5) across diffusion schemes, and (6) across diffusion sensitization. We employ four different bundle segmentation workflows on two benchmark multi-subject cross-scanner and cross-protocol databases, and investigate reproducibility and biases in volume overlap, shape geometry features of fiber pathways, and microstructure features within the pathways. We find that the effects of acquisition protocol, in particular acquisition resolution, result in the lowest reproducibility of tractography and largest variation of features, followed by vendor-effects, scanner-effects, and finally diffusion scheme and b-value effects which had similar reproducibility as scan-rescan variation. However, confounds varied both across pathways and across segmentation workflows, with some bundle segmentation workflows more (or less) robust to sources of variation. Despite variability, bundle dissection is consistently able to recover the same location of pathways in the deep white matter, with variation at the gray matter/ white matter interface. Next, we show that differences due to the choice of bundle segmentation workflows are larger than any other studied confound, with low-to-moderate overlap of the same intended pathway when segmented using different methods. Finally, quantifying microstructure features within a pathway, we show that tractography adds variability over-and-above that which exists due to noise, scanner effects, and acquisition effects. Overall, these confounds need to be considered when harmonizing diffusion datasets, interpreting or combining data across sites, and when attempting to understand the successes and limitations of different methodologies in the design and development of new tractography or bundle segmentation methods.

Indexed as

AnisotropyDiffusion Tensor ImagingHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedReproducibility of ResultsWhite MatterBundle segmentationHarmonizationReproducibilityTractographyWhite matter

Identifiers

PMID34358660
PMCPMC9933001
OpenAlexW3187263176

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.