ArticlePloS one2026
Is correction for gradient nonlinearity necessary in a brain diffusion tensor MRI clinical study?
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.
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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.