Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37546835›Full record

ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2023

DENOISING DIFFUSION MRI: CONSIDERATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR ANALYSIS.

Jose-Pedro Manzano-Patron, Steen Moeller, Jesper L R Andersson, Kamil Ugurbil, Essa Yacoub, Stamatios N Sotiropoulos

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jose-Pedro Manzano-PatronSir Peter Mansfield Imaging Centre, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0040-1926
Steen MoellerCenter for Magnetic Resonance Research, University of Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1698-7260
Jesper L R AnderssonWellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, University of Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0290-839X
Kamil UgurbilCenter for Magnetic Resonance Research, University of Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8475-9334
Essa YacoubCenter for Magnetic Resonance Research, University of Minnesota, USA.
Stamatios N SotiropoulosSir Peter Mansfield Imaging Centre, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4735-5776

Funding

TRD4 - Ultrahigh Field Engineering and SafetyP41EB027061 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI Gregory John Metzger, KAMIL UGURBIL · 2019 to 2026
$11.7M
Elementary Neuronal Ensembles to Whole Brain Networks: Ultrahigh Resolution Imaging of Function and Connectivity in Humans - SUPPLEMENTU01EB025144 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI UGURBIL, KAMIL · 2017 to 2022
$9.7M
The Neuronal Underpinnings of Non-invasive Laminar fMRIRF1MH116978 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI DEVINSKY, ORRIN, YACOUB, ESSA · 2018 to 2018
$2.9M
NIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB027061NIBIB NIH HHS U01 EB025144NIMH NIH HHS RF1 MH116978Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Development of diffusion MRI (dMRI) denoising approaches has experienced considerable growth over the last years. As noise can inherently reduce accuracy and precision in measurements, its effects have been well characterised both in terms of uncertainty increase in dMRI-derived features and in terms of biases caused by the noise floor, the smallest measurable signal given the noise level. However, gaps in our knowledge still exist in objectively characterising dMRI denoising approaches in terms of both of these effects and assessing their efficacy. In this work, we reconsider what a denoising method should and should not do and we accordingly define criteria to characterise the performance. We propose a comprehensive set of evaluations, including i) benefits in improving signal quality and reducing noise variance, ii) gains in reducing biases and the noise floor and improving, iii) preservation of spatial resolution, iv) agreement of denoised data against a gold standard, v) gains in downstream parameter estimation (precision and accuracy), vi) efficacy in enabling noise-prone applications, such as ultra-high-resolution imaging. We further provide newly acquired complex datasets (magnitude and phase) with multiple repeats that sample different SNR regimes to highlight performance differences under different scenarios. Without loss of generality, we subsequently apply a number of exemplar patch-based denoising algorithms to these datasets, including Non-Local Means, Marchenko-Pastur PCA (MPPCA) in the magnitude and complex domain and NORDIC, and compare them with respect to the above criteria and against a gold standard complex average of multiple repeats. We demonstrate that all tested denoising approaches reduce noise-related variance, but not always biases from the elevated noise floor. They all induce a spatial resolution penalty, but its extent can vary depending on the method and the implementation. Some denoising approaches agree with the gold standard more than others and we demonstrate challenges in even defining such a standard. Overall, we show that dMRI denoising performed in the complex domain is advantageous to magnitude domain denoising with respect to all the above criteria.

Indexed as

ComplexDTIMarchenko-PasturMPPCANLMNoise floorNORDICUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID37546835
PMCPMC10402048

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.