4.5 Article

REKINDLE: Robust Extraction of Kurtosis INDices with Linear Estimation

Journal

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE
Volume 73, Issue 2, Pages 794-808

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.25165

Keywords

robust estimation; outliers; diffusion MRI; DTI; DKI; linear

Funding

  1. Physical Sciences division of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) [612.001.104]
  2. Dutch National Epilepsy Fund [NEF 12-05]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PurposeRecent literature shows that diffusion tensor properties can be estimated more accurately with diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) than with diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). Furthermore, the additional non-Gaussian diffusion features from DKI can be sensitive markers for tissue characterization. Despite these benefits, DKI is more susceptible to data artifacts than DTI due to its increased model complexity, higher acquisition demands, and longer scanning times. To increase the reliability of diffusion tensor and kurtosis estimates, we propose a robust estimation procedure for DKI. MethodsWe have developed a robust and linear estimation framework, coined REKINDLE (Robust Extraction of Kurtosis INDices with Linear Estimation), consisting of an iteratively reweighted linear least squares approach. Simulations are performed, in which REKINDLE is evaluated and compared with the widely used RESTORE (Robust EStimation of Tensors by Outlier REjection) method. ResultsSimulations demonstrate that in the presence of outliers, REKINDLE can estimate diffusion and kurtosis indices reliably and with a 10-fold reduction in computation time compared with RESTORE. ConclusionWe have presented and evaluated REKINDLE, a linear and robust estimation framework for DKI. While REKINDLE has been developed for DKI, it is by design also applicable to DTI and other diffusion models that can be linearized. Magn Reson Med 73:794-808, 2015. (c) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available