Evaluating High Spatial Resolution Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging at <scp>3T</scp> : Reproducibility and Quality of Fit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) quantifies the non-Gaussian diffusion of water within tissue microstructure. However, it has increased fitting parameters and requires higher b-values. Evaluation of DKI reproducibility is important for clinical purposes. PURPOSE: To assess the reproducibility in whole-brain high-resolution DKI at varying b-values. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. SUBJECTS AND PHANTOMS: In all, 44 individuals from the test-retest Human Connectome Project (HCP) database and 12 3D-printed phantoms. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Diffusion-weighted multiband echo-planar imaging sequence at 3T and 9.4T. magnetization-prepared rapid acquisition gradient echo at 3T for in vivo structural data only. ASSESSMENT: (dataset C) were extracted. Estimated DKI metrics from each dataset were used for evaluating reproducibility and fitting quality in white matter (WM) and gray matter (GM) based on whole-brain and regions of interest (ROIs). STATISTICAL TESTS: DKI reproducibility was assessed using the within-subject coefficient of variation (CoV), fitting residuals to evaluate DKI fitting accuracy and Pearson's correlation to investigate the presence of systematic biases. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used for statistical comparison. RESULTS: Datasets A and B exhibited lower DKI CoVs (<20%) compared to C (<50%) in both WM and GM ROIs (all P < 0.05). This effect varies between DKI and DTI parameters (P < 0.005). Whole-brain fitting residuals were consistent across datasets (P > 0.05), but lower residuals in dataset B were detected for the WM ROIs (P < 0.001). A similar trend was observed for the phantom data CoVs (<7.5%) at varying fiber orientations for datasets A and B. Finally, dataset C was characterized by higher residuals across the different fiber crossings (P < 0.05). DATA CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates that high reproducibility can still be achieved within a reasonable scan time, specifically dataset B, supporting the potential of DKI for aiding clinical tools in detecting microstructural changes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".