4.7 Article

Quantitative Comparison of Reconstruction Methods for Intra-Voxel Fiber Recovery From Diffusion MRI

Journal

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING
Volume 33, Issue 2, Pages 384-399

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TMI.2013.2285500

Keywords

Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI); local reconstruction; quantitative comparison; synthetic data; validation

Funding

  1. Division of Computing and Communication Foundations
  2. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr [0844812] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Validation is arguably the bottleneck in the diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) community. This paper evaluates and compares 20 algorithms for recovering the local intra-voxel fiber structure from diffusion MRI data and is based on the results of the HARDI reconstruction challenge organized in the context of the ISBI 2012 conference. Evaluated methods encompass a mixture of classical techniques well known in the literature such as diffusion tensor, Q-Ball and diffusion spectrum imaging, algorithms inspired by the recent theory of compressed sensing and also brand new approaches proposed for the first time at this contest. To quantitatively compare the methods under controlled conditions, two datasets with known ground-truth were synthetically generated and two main criteria were used to evaluate the quality of the reconstructions in every voxel: correct assessment of the number of fiber populations and angular accuracy in their orientation. This comparative study investigates the behavior of every algorithm with varying experimental conditions and highlights strengths and weaknesses of each approach. This information can be useful not only for enhancing current algorithms and develop the next generation of reconstruction methods, but also to assist physicians in the choice of the most adequate technique for their studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available