ArticleScientific reports2024
Validation of conductivity tensor imaging against diffusion tensor magnetic resonance electrical impedance tomography.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Clinical Applications of Electrical Conductivity Imaging Using MRI.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026Review
- Comparison of modelled diffusion-derived electrical conductivities found using magnetic resonance imaging.Frontiers in radiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Diffusion tensor magnetic resonance electrical impedance tomography (DT-MREIT) and electrodeless conductivity tensor imaging (CTI) are two emerging modalities that can quantify low-frequency tissue anisotropic conductivity properties by assuming similar properties underlie ionic mobility and water diffusion. While both methods have potential applications to estimating neuro-modulation fields or formulating forward models used for electrical source imaging, a direct comparison of the two modalities has not yet been performed in-vitro or in-vivo. Therefore, the aim of this study was to test the equivalence of these two modalities. We scanned a tissue phantom and the head of human subject using DT-MREIT and CTI protocols and reconstructed conductivity tensor and effective low frequency conductivities. We found both gray and white matter conductivities recovered by each technique were equivalent within 0.05 S/m. Both DT-MREIT and CTI require multiple processing steps, and we further assess the effects of each factor on reconstructions and evaluate the extent to which different measurement mechanisms potentially cause discrepancies between the two methods. Finally, we discuss the implications for spectral models of measuring conductivity using these techniques. The study further establishes the credibility of CTI as an electrodeless non-invasive method of measuring low frequency conductivity properties.
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.