Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42406807›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Is correction for gradient nonlinearity necessary in a brain diffusion tensor MRI clinical study?

Praitayini Kanakaraj, Tianyuan Yao, Zhiyuan Li, Nancy R Newlin, Michael E Kim, Chenyu Gao, Tian Yu, Aravind Krishnan, Baxter P Rogers, Tim Hohman and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. 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

19 authors.

Praitayini KanakarajDepartment of Computer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9979-217X
Tianyuan YaoDepartment of Computer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, United States of America.
Zhiyuan LiDepartment of Computer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, United States of America.
Nancy R NewlinDepartment of Computer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, United States of America.
Michael E KimDepartment of Computer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, United States of America.
Chenyu GaoDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, United States of America.
Tian YuDepartment of Computer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, United States of America.
Aravind KrishnanDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, United States of America.
Baxter P RogersVanderbilt University Institute for Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, United States of America.
Tim HohmanVanderbilt Memory and Alzheimer's Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, United States of America.
Angela L JeffersonVanderbilt Memory and Alzheimer's Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, United States of America.
Niranjana ShashikumarVanderbilt Memory and Alzheimer's Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, United States of America.
Kimberly R PechmanVanderbilt Memory and Alzheimer's Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, United States of America.
L Taylor DavisVanderbilt Memory and Alzheimer's Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, United States of America.
Daniel MoyerDepartment of Computer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, United States of America.
Kurt G SchillingVanderbilt University Institute for Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, United States of America.
Derek ArcherVanderbilt Memory and Alzheimer's Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, United States of America.
Adam AndersonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, United States of America.
Bennett A LandmanDepartment of Computer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nonlinear gradients alter the diffusion encoding in brain diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), leading to spatially varying diffusion weighting which bias quantitative measures if uncorrected. Although the overall effects of gradient nonlinearity correction in brain studies are typically minimal and often fall below the detection limits of traditional imaging resolutions and sensitivities, their cumulative impact on clinical outcomes requires further study. This study investigates the significance and effects of correcting gradient nonlinearity in DW-MRI, focusing on the microstructural and macrostructural changes in white matter (WM) and gray matter (GM) across a clinical cohort. Our primary aim is to clarify whether the observed nonlinearity significantly alters the interpretation of aging in clinical settings, particularly in studies comparing healthy individuals to those with neurological conditions. We assess the extent of nonlinear fields impact on individual scans, interscanner observations, and a tract-based analysis. Using data from the Vanderbilt Memory & Aging Project (n = 948 imaging sessions, 933 on Scanner B and 15 on Scanner A acquired with single-shell diffusion tensor imaging protocol), we find 1%, 3.3%, and 5-degree changes in microstructure measures, fractional anisotropy (FA), mean diffusivity (MD), and primary eigen vector (V1) respectively, affecting at least 20% of the brain. Across sessions, head positioning sampled typical clinical variability, with head offsets of approximately 0-10 mm and rotations of 0-10° relative to magnet isocenter. Subcortical regions in the superior regions, occipital lobules, and parietal lobules exhibit relatively higher impacts. Macrostructural measures show changes up to 12% after nonlinear field correction. GNL effects are 5% and 0.33% of FA and MD changes between mild cognitive impairment and controls. A simple power analysis indicates that these subtle effects of gradient nonlinearity correction can become statistically detectable in larger multi-site studies exceeding ~1000 subjects, suggesting that GNL should be considered and, where possible, corrected or at least quantified in such settings.

Indexed as

BrainDiffusion Tensor ImagingAgedAnisotropyFemaleGray MatterHumansMaleMiddle AgedNonlinear DynamicsWhite Matter

Identifiers

PMID42406807
PMCPMC13336164

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.