4.7 Article

Fiber tractography bundle segmentation depends on scanner effects, vendor effects, acquisition resolution, diffusion sampling scheme, diffusion sensitization, and bundle segmentation workflow

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 242, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118451

关键词

Tractography; Bundle segmentation; White matter; Reproducibility; Harmonization

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [1452485]
  2. National Institutes of Health [R01EB017230, T32EB001628]
  3. ViSE/VICTR [VR3029]
  4. National Center for Research Resources [UL1 RR024975-01]
  5. Sir Henry Wellcome Fellowship [215944/Z/19/Z]
  6. Dutch Research Council (NWO) [17331]
  7. Div Of Information & Intelligent Systems
  8. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr [1452485] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  9. Wellcome Trust [215944/Z/19/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the impact of various factors on diffusion tractography bundle segmentation, including scan repeats, scanners, vendors, acquisition resolution, diffusion schemes, and diffusion sensitization. The acquisition protocol, particularly resolution, has the largest effect on reproducibility and features variation, followed by vendor and scanner effects. Different segmentation workflows show varying robustness to sources of variation. The choice of bundle segmentation workflows has a bigger impact on the results than other confounding factors.
When investigating connectivity and microstructure of white matter pathways of the brain using diffusion tractography bundle segmentation, it is important to understand potential confounds and sources of variation in the process. While cross-scanner and cross-protocol effects on diffusion microstructure measures are well described (in particular fractional anisotropy and mean diffusivity), it is unknown how potential sources of variation effect bundle segmentation results, which features of the bundle are most affected, where variability occurs, nor how these sources of variation depend upon the method used to reconstruct and segment bundles. In this study, we investigate six potential sources of variation, or confounds, for bundle segmentation: variation (1) across scan repeats, (2) across scanners, (3) across vendors (4) across acquisition resolution, (5) across diffusion schemes, and (6) across diffusion sensitization. We employ four different bundle segmentation workflows on two benchmark multi-subject cross-scanner and cross-protocol databases, and investigate reproducibility and biases in volume overlap, shape geometry features of fiber pathways, and microstructure features within the pathways. We find that the effects of acquisition protocol, in particular acquisition resolution, result in the lowest reproducibility of tractography and largest variation of features, followed by vendor-effects, scanner-effects, and finally diffusion scheme and b-value effects which had similar reproducibility as scan-rescan variation. However, confounds varied both across pathways and across segmentation workflows, with some bundle segmentation workflows more (or less) robust to sources of variation. Despite variability, bundle dissection is consistently able to recover the same location of pathways in the deep white matter, with variation at the gray matter/ white matter interface. Next, we show that differences due to the choice of bundle segmentation workflows are larger than any other studied confound, with low-to-moderate overlap of the same intended pathway when segmented using different methods. Finally, quantifying microstructure features within a pathway, we show that tractography adds variability over-and-above that which exists due to noise, scanner effects, and acquisition effects. Overall, these confounds need to be considered when harmonizing diffusion datasets, interpreting or combining data across sites, and when attempting to understand the successes and limitations of different methodologies in the design and development of new tractography or bundle segmentation methods.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据