↓ Skip to main content

Diffusion Capillary Phantom vs. Human Data: Outcomes for Reconstruction Methods Depend on Evaluation Medium

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Diffusion Capillary Phantom vs. Human Data: Outcomes for Reconstruction Methods Depend on Evaluation Medium
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, September 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2016.00407
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah D. Lichenstein, James H. Bishop, Timothy D. Verstynen, Fang-Cheng Yeh

Abstract

Diffusion MRI provides a non-invasive way of estimating structural connectivity in the brain. Many studies have used diffusion phantoms as benchmarks to assess the performance of different tractography reconstruction algorithms and assumed that the results can be applied to in vivo studies. Here we examined whether quality metrics derived from a common, publically available, diffusion phantom can reliably predict tractography performance in human white matter tissue. We compared estimates of fiber length and fiber crossing among a simple tensor model (diffusion tensor imaging), a more complicated model (ball-and-sticks) and model-free (diffusion spectrum imaging, generalized q-sampling imaging) reconstruction methods using a capillary phantom and in vivo human data (N = 14). Our analysis showed that evaluation outcomes differ depending on whether they were obtained from phantom or human data. Specifically, the diffusion phantom favored a more complicated model over a simple tensor model or model-free methods for resolving crossing fibers. On the other hand, the human studies showed the opposite pattern of results, with the model-free methods being more advantageous than model-based methods or simple tensor models. This performance difference was consistent across several metrics, including estimating fiber length and resolving fiber crossings in established white matter pathways. These findings indicate that the construction of current capillary diffusion phantoms tends to favor complicated reconstruction models over a simple tensor model or model-free methods, whereas the in vivo data tends to produce opposite results. This brings into question the previous phantom-based evaluation approaches and suggests that a more realistic phantom or simulation is necessary to accurately predict the relative performance of different tractography reconstruction methods.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Austria 1 5%
Unknown 18 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 16%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 5 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 16%
Physics and Astronomy 2 11%
Engineering 2 11%
Neuroscience 2 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 September 2016.
All research outputs
#16,721,208
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#7,423
of 11,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,480
of 345,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#70
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 345,271 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 129 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.