ArticleFrontiers in neuroimaging2026
Diffusion MRI sampling schemes bias diffusion metrics and tractography.
Article in Frontiers in neuroimaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Diffusion MRI is increasingly used to study white-matter architecture, but tractography and diffusion metrics can be biased by different sampling schemes. We assessed systematic differences across four common protocols-single-shell high-angular resolution diffusion imaging (HARDI), Siemens clinical multi-shell (Sms), diffusion spectrum imaging (DSI), and Human Connectome Project multi-shell (HCPms)-in healthy adults and individuals with corpus callosum dysgenesis (CCD). Methods: All data were acquired on a single 3 T scanner and processed uniformly to extract fractional anisotropy (FA), mean diffusivity (MD), effective contrast-to-noise ratio (eCNR), and orientation dispersion within the corpus callosum (CC), corona radiata (CR), and centrum semiovale (CSO). In controls, we measured tract volumes for CC, bilateral CR, anterior commissure (AC) and posterior commissure (PC), and streamline counts for AC and PC; in CCD, we quantified volumes of the Probst and sigmoid bundles. Results: Across participants, FA and MD showed moderate cross-scheme correlations for most ROIs, but matched means were rare (only Sms-HARDI in CC). eCNR and dispersion exhibited few cross-scheme correlations; however, means were similar for eCNR between Sms and HCPms and for dispersion among HARDI, DSI, and HCPms. Tract-based volumes correlated across Sms, DSI, and HCPms for CC in controls and for the right sigmoid and both Probst bundles in CCD. DSI and HCPms yielded similar volumes in all ROIs (controls and CCD). In controls, Sms volumes agreed with DSI/HCPms in CR, but were lower in CC and in all CCD ROIs. HARDI produced higher volumes in CC and bilateral CR in controls and in all CCD ROIs. For AC and PC in controls, tract-based means (volumes, streamlines, streamlines/volume) were consistent across schemes; nonetheless, correlations were limited-streamlines and streamlines/volume correlated for Sms, DSI, and HARDI in AC, and for DSI and HCPms in PC. Discussion: These findings demonstrate systematic differences in voxel-wise metrics and tractography outcomes from four diffusion-sampling schemes. In addition to qualitatively informing attempts to consolidate or contrast data across schemes, future work could explore regression-based harmonization-and other methods-to reduce residual bias and enable pooled analyses across diverse protocols.
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.