Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39917284›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in radiology2025

Comparison of modelled diffusion-derived electrical conductivities found using magnetic resonance imaging.

Sasha Hakhu, Leland S Hu, Scott Beeman, Rosalind J Sadleir

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Sasha HakhuSchool of Biological and Health Systems Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United States.
Leland S HuDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Scott BeemanSchool of Biological and Health Systems Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United States.
Rosalind J SadleirSchool of Biological and Health Systems Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Magnetic resonance-based electrical conductivity imaging offers a promising new contrast mechanism to enhance disease diagnosis. Conductivity tensor imaging (CTI) combines data from MR diffusion microstructure imaging to reconstruct electrodeless low-frequency conductivity images. However, different microstructure imaging methods rely on varying diffusion models and parameters, leading to divergent tissue conductivity estimates. This study investigates the variability in conductivity predictions across different microstructure models and evaluates their alignment with experimental observations. Methods: We used publicly available diffusion databases from neurotypical adults to extract microstructure parameters for three diffusion-based brain models: Neurite Orientation Dispersion and Density Imaging (NODDI), Soma and Neurite Density Imaging (SANDI), and Spherical Mean technique (SMT) conductivity predictions were calculated for gray matter (GM) and white matter (WM) tissues using each model. Comparative analyses were performed to assess the range of predicted conductivities and the consistency between bilateral tissue conductivities for each method. Results: Significant variability in conductivity estimates was observed across the three models. Each method predicted distinct conductivity values for GM and WM tissues, with notable differences in the range of conductivities observed for specific tissue examples. Despite the variability, many WM and GM tissues exhibited symmetric bilateral conductivities within each microstructure model. SMT yielded conductivity estimates closer to values reported in experimental studies, while none of the methods aligned with spectroscopic models of tissue conductivity. Discussion and conclusion: Our findings highlight substantial discrepancies in tissue conductivity estimates generated by different diffusion models, underscoring the challenge of selecting an appropriate model for low-frequency electrical conductivity imaging. SMT demonstrated better alignment with experimental results. However other microstructure models may produce better tissue discrimination.

Indexed as

diffusionelectrical conductivityelectrodeless methodsmagnetic resonance imagingmicrostructure imaging

Identifiers

PMID39917284
PMCPMC11794185

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.