Literature DB >> 26091854

White matter compartment models for in vivo diffusion MRI at 300mT/m.

Uran Ferizi1, Torben Schneider2, Thomas Witzel3, Lawrence L Wald3, Hui Zhang4, Claudia A M Wheeler-Kingshott2, Daniel C Alexander4.   

Abstract

This paper compares a range of compartment models for diffusion MRI data on in vivo human acquisitions from a standard 60mT/m system (Philips 3T Achieva) and a unique 300mT/m system (Siemens Connectom). The key aim is to determine whether both systems support broadly the same models or whether the Connectom higher gradient system supports significantly more complex models. A single volunteer underwent 8h of acquisition on each system to provide uniquely wide and dense sampling of the available space of pulsed-gradient spin-echo (PGSE) measurements. We select a set of promising models from the wide set of possible three-compartment models for in vivo white matter (WM) that previous work and preliminary experiments suggest as strong candidates, but extend them to fit for compartmental T2 and diffusivity. We focus on the corpus callosum where the WM fibre architecture is simplest and compare their ability to explain the measured data, using Akaike's information criterion (AIC), and to predict unseen data, using cross-validation. We also compare the stability of parameter estimates in the presence of i) noise, using bootstrapping, and ii) spatial variation, using visual assessment and comparison with anatomical knowledge. Broadly similar models emerge from the AIC and cross-validation experiments in both data sets. Specifically, a three-compartment model consisting of either a Bingham distribution of sticks or a Cylinder for the intracellular compartment, an anisotropic diffusion tensor (DT) model for the extracellular compartment, as well as an isotropic CSF compartment, performs consistently well. However, various other models also perform well and no single model emerges as clear winner. The WM data (with virtually no CSF contamination) do not support compartmental T2 but partially support compartmental diffusivity. Evaluation of parameter stability favours simpler models than those identified by AIC or cross-validation. They suggest that the level of complexity in models underpinning currently popular microstructure imaging techniques such as NODDI, CHARMED, or ActiveAx, where the number of free parameters is about 4 or 5 rather than 10 or 11, may reflect the level of complexity achievable for a useful technique on current systems, although the 300mT/m data may support more complex models.
Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Connectom; brain microstructure; diffusion MRI; model selection

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26091854     DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.06.027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroimage        ISSN: 1053-8119            Impact factor:   6.556


  25 in total

1.  Evaluating kurtosis-based diffusion MRI tissue models for white matter with fiber ball imaging.

Authors:  Jens H Jensen; Emilie T McKinnon; G Russell Glenn; Joseph A Helpern
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2017-01-13       Impact factor: 4.044

2.  Diffusion MRI microstructural models in the cervical spinal cord - Application, normative values, and correlations with histological analysis.

Authors:  Kurt G Schilling; Samantha By; Haley R Feiler; Bailey A Box; Kristin P O'Grady; Atlee Witt; Bennett A Landman; Seth A Smith
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2019-07-19       Impact factor: 6.556

Review 3.  Modeling white matter microstructure.

Authors:  T Duval; N Stikov; J Cohen-Adad
Journal:  Funct Neurol       Date:  2016 Oct/Dec

Review 4.  Studying neuroanatomy using MRI.

Authors:  Jason P Lerch; André J W van der Kouwe; Armin Raznahan; Tomáš Paus; Heidi Johansen-Berg; Karla L Miller; Stephen M Smith; Bruce Fischl; Stamatios N Sotiropoulos
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2017-02-23       Impact factor: 24.884

5.  Motion-robust diffusion compartment imaging using simultaneous multi-slice acquisition.

Authors:  Bahram Marami; Benoit Scherrer; Shadab Khan; Onur Afacan; Sanjay P Prabhu; Mustafa Sahin; Simon K Warfield; Ali Gholipour
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2018-11-16       Impact factor: 4.668

Review 6.  Quantifying brain microstructure with diffusion MRI: Theory and parameter estimation.

Authors:  Dmitry S Novikov; Els Fieremans; Sune N Jespersen; Valerij G Kiselev
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2018-10-15       Impact factor: 4.044

7.  A robust diffusion tensor model for clinical applications of MRI to cartilage.

Authors:  Uran Ferizi; Amparo Ruiz; Ignacio Rossi; Jenny Bencardino; José G Raya
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2017-05-28       Impact factor: 4.668

8.  Reduced Microstructural Lateralization in Males with Chronic Schizophrenia: A Diffusional Kurtosis Imaging Study.

Authors:  Faye McKenna; James Babb; Laura Miles; Donald Goff; Mariana Lazar
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2020-04-14       Impact factor: 5.357

9.  Rotationally-invariant mapping of scalar and orientational metrics of neuronal microstructure with diffusion MRI.

Authors:  Dmitry S Novikov; Jelle Veraart; Ileana O Jelescu; Els Fieremans
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 6.556

10.  Sensitivity of multi-shell NODDI to multiple sclerosis white matter changes: a pilot study.

Authors:  Torben Schneider; W Brownlee; H Zhang; Olga Ciccarelli; David H Miller; Claudia Gandini Wheeler-Kingshott
Journal:  Funct Neurol       Date:  2017 Apr/Jun
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.