MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977223300 · doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2015.03.007

Comparing a diffusion tensor and non-tensor approach to white matter fiber tractography in chronic stroke

2015· article· en· W1977223300 on OpenAlexafffund
Angela M. Auriat, Michael R. Borich, Nicholas J. Snow, Katie P. Wadden, Lara A. Boyd

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroImage Clinical · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsDiffusion MRIFractional anisotropyTractographyVoxelWhite matterCorticospinal tractCorpus callosumStroke (engine)Effective diffusion coefficientNeuroscienceMagnetic resonance imagingMedicinePsychologyPhysicsRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI)-based tractography has been used to demonstrate functionally relevant differences in white matter pathway status after stroke. However, it is now known that the tensor model is insensitive to the complex fiber architectures found in the vast majority of voxels in the human brain. The inability to resolve intra-voxel fiber orientations may have important implications for the utility of standard DTI-based tract reconstruction methods. Intra-voxel fiber orientations can now be identified using novel, tensor-free approaches. Constrained spherical deconvolution (CSD) is one approach to characterize intra-voxel diffusion behavior. In the current study, we performed DTI- and CSD-based tract reconstruction of the corticospinal tract (CST) and corpus callosum (CC) to test the hypothesis that characterization of complex fiber orientations may improve the robustness of fiber tract reconstruction and increase the sensitivity to identify functionally relevant white matter abnormalities in individuals with chronic stroke. Diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging was performed in 27 chronic post-stroke participants and 12 healthy controls. Transcallosal pathways and the CST bilaterally were reconstructed using DTI- and CSD-based tractography. Mean fractional anisotropy (FA), apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), axial diffusivity (AD), and radial diffusivity (RD) were calculated across the tracts of interest. The total number and volume of reconstructed tracts was also determined. Diffusion measures were compared between groups (Stroke, Control) and methods (CSD, DTI). The relationship between post-stroke motor behavior and diffusion measures was evaluated. Overall, CSD methods identified more tracts than the DTI-based approach for both CC and CST pathways. Mean FA, ADC, and RD differed between DTI and CSD for CC-mediated tracts. In these tracts, we discovered a difference in FA for the CC between stroke and healthy control groups using CSD but not DTI. CSD identified ipsilesional CST pathways in 9 stroke participants who did not have tracts identified with DTI. Additionally, CSD differentiated between stroke ipsilesional and healthy control non-dominant CST for several measures (number of tracts, tract volume, FA, ADC, and RD) whereas DTI only detected group differences for number of tracts. In the stroke group, motor behavior correlated with fewer diffusion metrics derived from the DTI as compared to CSD-reconstructed ipsilesional CST and CC. CSD is superior to DTI-based tractography in detecting differences in diffusion characteristics between the nondominant healthy control and ipsilesional CST. CSD measures of microstructure tissue properties related to more motor outcomes than DTI measures did. Our results suggest the potential utility and functional relevance of characterizing complex fiber organization using tensor-free diffusion modeling approaches to investigate white matter pathways in the brain after stroke.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.172
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations78
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroImage ClinicalSame topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207