Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35644448›Full record

ArticleMagnetic resonance imaging2022

EPI susceptibility correction introduces significant differences far from local areas of high distortion.

John P Begnoche, Kurt G Schilling, Brian D Boyd, Leon Y Cai, Warren D Taylor, Bennett A Landman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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. Article
  2. Article
  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

6 authors.

John P BegnocheCenter for Cognitive Medicine, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. Electronic address: John.p.begnoche@vumc.org.
Kurt G SchillingDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA; Vanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.
Brian D BoydCenter for Cognitive Medicine, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Leon Y CaiDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.
Warren D TaylorCenter for Cognitive Medicine, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Bennett A LandmanCenter for Cognitive Medicine, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA; Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA; Vanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA; Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.

Funding

Neural Connectivity Affecting the Antidepressant Response: Testing a Lesion ModelR01MH102246 · NIMH · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI TAYLOR, WARREN D · 2015 to 2019
$3.1M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH102246
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging, correcting for susceptibility-induced artifacts typically requires acquiring pairs of images, known as blip-up blip-down acquisitions, to create an undistorted volume as a target to correct distortions that are often focal where regions with differences in magnetic susceptibility interface, such as the frontal and temporal areas. However, blip-up blip-down acquisitions are not always available, and distortion effects may not be specifically localized to such areas, with subtle effects potentially extending throughout the brain. Here, we apply a deep learning technique to generate an undistorted volume to correct susceptibility-induced artifacts and demonstrate implications for image fidelity and diffusion-based inference outside of areas where high focal distortion is present.

methodsTo demonstrate differences due to susceptibility artifact correction, uncorrected baseline images were compared to identical images where correction was performed using an undistorted target volume produced by the deep learning tool "PreQual". Widespread geometric distortion was assessed visually by referencing diffusion-weighted images to T1-weighted images. Tract-based spatial statistics (TBSS) were utilized to perform whole brain analysis of fractional anisotropy (FA) values to assess differences between subject groups (depressed vs. non-depressed) via permutation-based, voxel-wise testing. Multivariate regression models were then used to contrast TBSS results between corrected and non-corrected diffusion images.

resultsSusceptibility artifact correction resulted in visible, widespread improvement in image fidelity when referenced to T1-weighted images. TBSS results were dependent on susceptibility artifact correction with correction resulting in widespread structural alterations of the mean FA skeleton, changes in skeletal FA, and additional positive tests of significance of regression coefficients in subsequent regression models.

conclusionOur results indicated that EPI distortion effects are not purely focal, and that reducing distortion can result in significant differences in the interpretation of diffusion data, even in areas remote from high distortion.

Indexed as

Diffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingImage Processing, Computer-AssistedAlgorithmsArtifactsBrainEcho-Planar ImagingDiffusion weighted imagingDistortion correctionPreprocessingQuality assurance

Identifiers

PMID35644448
PMCPMC10265545

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.