MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393276331 · doi:10.3389/fnimg.2024.1359589

Down-sampling in diffusion MRI: a bundle-specific DTI and NODDI study

2024· article· en· W4393276331 on OpenAlexafffund
Federico Spagnolo, Susanna Gobbi, Enikő Zsoldos, Manon Edde, Matthias Weigel, Cristina Granziera, Maxime Descoteaux, Muhamed Baraković, Stefano Magon

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neuroimaging · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthGenentechIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SServierEisaiNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationF. Hoffmann-La RocheUniversity of Southern CaliforniaBiogenEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbBioClinicaU.S. Department of DefenseMeso Scale DiagnosticsAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationPfizerNational Institute on AgingAlzheimer's Association
KeywordsDiffusion MRIFractional anisotropyWhite matterNuclear medicineMagnetic resonance imagingSampling (signal processing)MedicineNuclear magnetic resonancePhysicsRadiologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Multi-shell diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging (dMRI) data has been widely used to characterise white matter microstructure in several neurodegenerative diseases. The lack of standardised dMRI protocols often implies the acquisition of redundant measurements, resulting in prolonged acquisition times. In this study, we investigate the impact of the number of gradient directions on Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) and on Neurite Orientation Dispersion and Density Imaging (NODDI) metrics. Methods Data from 124 healthy controls collected in three different longitudinal studies were included. Using an in-house algorithm, we reduced the number of gradient directions in each data shell. We estimated DTI and NODDI measures on six white matter bundles clinically relevant for neurodegenerative diseases. Results Fractional Anisotropy (FA) measures on bundles where data were sampled at the 30% rate, showed a median L 1 distance of up to 3.92% and a 95% CI of (1.74, 8.97)% when compared to those obtained at reference sampling. Mean Diffusivity (MD) reached up to 4.31% and a 95% CI of (1.60, 16.98)% on the same premises. At a sampling rate of 50%, we obtained a median of 3.90% and a 95% CI of (1.99, 16.65)% in FA, and 5.49% with a 95% CI of (2.14, 21.68)% in MD. The Intra-Cellular volume fraction (ICvf) median L 1 distance was up to 2.83% with a 95% CI of (1.98, 4.82)% at a 30% sampling rate and 3.95% with a 95% CI of (2.39, 7.81)% at a 50% sampling rate. The volume difference of the reconstructed white matter at reference and 50% sampling reached a maximum of (2.09 ± 0.81)%. Discussion In conclusion, DTI and NODDI measures reported at reference sampling were comparable to those obtained when the number of dMRI volumes was reduced by up to 30%. Close to reference DTI and NODDI metrics were estimated with a significant reduction in acquisition time using three shells, respectively with: 4 directions at a b value of 700 s / mm 2 , 14 at 1000 s / mm 2 , and 32 at 2000 s / mm 2 . The study revealed aspects that can be important for large-scale clinical studies on bundle-specific diffusion MRI.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.204
Threshold uncertainty score0.795

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeuroimagingSame topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207