ArticleMagnetic resonance imaging2022
TractEM: Evaluation of protocols for deterministic tractography white matter atlas.
Article in Magnetic resonance imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sex-related variability of white matter tracts in the whole HCP cohort.Brain structure & function · 2024Article
- The influence of regions of interest on tractography virtual dissection protocols: general principles to learn and to follow.Brain structure & function · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Reproducible identification of white matter pathways across subjects is essential for the study of structural connectivity of the human brain. One of the key challenges is anatomical differences between subjects and human rater subjectivity in labeling. Labeling white matter regions of interest presents many challenges due to the need to integrate both local and global information. Clearly communicating the manual processes to capture this information is cumbersome, yet essential to lay a solid foundation for comprehensive atlases. Segmentation protocols must be designed so the interpretation of the requested tasks as well as locating structural landmarks is anatomically accurate, intuitive and reproducible. In this work, we quantified the reproducibility of a first iteration of an open/public multi-bundle segmentation protocol. This allowed us to establish a baseline for its reproducibility as well as to identify the limitations for future iterations. The protocol was tested/evaluated on both typical 3 T research acquisition Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (BLSA) and high-acquisition quality Human Connectome Project (HCP) datasets. The results show that a rudimentary protocol can produce acceptable intra-rater and inter-rater reproducibility. However, this work highlights the difficulty in generalizing reproducible results and the importance of reaching consensus on anatomical description of white matter pathways. The protocol has been made available in open source to improve generalizability and reliability in collaboration. The goal is to improve upon the first iteration and initiate a discussion on the anatomical validity (or lack thereof) of some bundle definitions and the importance of reproducibility of tractography segmentation.
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.