Test-retest reproducibility of in vivo oscillating gradient and microscopic anisotropy diffusion MRI in mice at 9.4 Tesla
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Microstructure imaging with advanced diffusion MRI (dMRI) techniques have shown increased sensitivity and specificity to microstructural changes in various disease and injury models. Oscillating gradient spin echo (OGSE) dMRI, implemented by varying the oscillating gradient frequency, and microscopic anisotropy (μA) dMRI, implemented via tensor valued diffusion encoding, may provide additional insight by increasing sensitivity to smaller spatial scales and disentangling fiber orientation dispersion from true microstructural changes, respectively. The aims of this study were to characterize the test-retest reproducibility of in vivo OGSE and μA dMRI metrics in the mouse brain at 9.4 Tesla and provide estimates of required sample sizes for future investigations. METHODS: Twelve adult C57Bl/6 mice were scanned twice (5 days apart). Each imaging session consisted of multifrequency OGSE and μA dMRI protocols. Metrics investigated included μA, linear diffusion kurtosis, isotropic diffusion kurtosis, and the diffusion dispersion rate (Λ), which explores the power-law frequency dependence of mean diffusivity. The dMRI metric maps were analyzed with mean region-of-interest (ROI) and whole brain voxel-wise analysis. Bland-Altman plots and coefficients of variation (CV) were used to assess the reproducibility of OGSE and μA metrics. Furthermore, we estimated sample sizes required to detect a variety of effect sizes. RESULTS: Bland-Altman plots showed negligible biases between test and retest sessions. ROI-based CVs revealed high reproducibility for most metrics (CVs < 15%). Voxel-wise CV maps revealed high reproducibility for μA (CVs ~ 10%), but low reproducibility for OGSE metrics (CVs ~ 50%). CONCLUSION: Most of the μA dMRI metrics are reproducible in both ROI-based and voxel-wise analysis, while the OGSE dMRI metrics are only reproducible in ROI-based analysis. Given feasible sample sizes (10-15), μA metrics and OGSE metrics may provide sensitivity to subtle microstructural changes (4-8%) and moderate changes (> 6%), respectively.
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 | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".