Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40800437›Full record

ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2024

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 read
In one paragraph

Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Locally low-rank denoising in transform domains.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Steen MoellerCenter for Magnetic Resonance Research, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States.
Jesper L R AnderssonWellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Kamil UgurbilCenter for Magnetic Resonance Research, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States.
Essa YacoubCenter for Magnetic Resonance Research, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States.
Stamatios N SotiropoulosSir Peter Mansfield Imaging Centre, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

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), and 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

PMID40800437
PMCPMC12224456

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.