↓ Skip to main content

White Matter Tissue Quantification at Low b-Values Within Constrained Spherical Deconvolution Framework

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, August 2018
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
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
White Matter Tissue Quantification at Low b-Values Within Constrained Spherical Deconvolution Framework
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2018.00716
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alessandro Calamuneri, Alessandro Arrigo, Enricomaria Mormina, Demetrio Milardi, Alberto Cacciola, Gaetana Chillemi, Silvia Marino, Michele Gaeta, Angelo Quartarone

Abstract

In the last decades, a number of Diffusion Weighted Imaging (DWI) based techniques have been developed to study non-invasively human brain tissues, especially white matter (WM). In this context, Constrained Spherical Deconvolution (CSD) is recognized as being able to accurately characterize water molecules displacement, as they emerge from the observation of MR diffusion weighted (MR-DW) images. CSD is suggested to be applied on MR-DW datasets consisting of b-values around 3,000 s/mm2 and at least 45 unique diffusion weighting directions. Below such technical requirements, Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DT) remains the most widely accepted model. Unlike CSD, DTI is unable to resolve complex fiber geometries within the brain, thus affecting related tissues quantification. In addition, thanks to CSD, an index called Apparent Fiber Density (AFD) can be measured to estimate intra-axonal volume fraction within WM. In standard clinical settings, diffusion based acquisitions are well below such technical requirements. Therefore, in this study we wanted to extensively compare CSD and DTI model outcomes on really low demanding MR-DW datasets, i.e., consisting of a single shell (b-value = 1,000 s/mm2) and only 30 unique diffusion encoding directions. To this end, we performed deterministic and probabilistic tractographic reconstruction of two major WM pathways, namely the Corticospinal Tract and the Arcuate Fasciculus. We estimated and analyzed tensor based features as well as, for the first time, AFD interpretability in our data. By performing multivariate statistics and tract-based ROI analysis, we demonstrate that WM quantification is affected by both the diffusion model and threshold applied to noisy tractographic maps. Consistently with existing literature, we showed that CSD outperforms DTI even in our scenario. Most importantly, for the first time we address the problem of accuracy and interpretation of AFD in a low-demanding DW setup, and show that it is still a biological meaningful measure for the analysis of intra-axonal volume even in clinical settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 24%
Student > Master 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Researcher 4 9%
Other 3 7%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 9 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 10 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Computer Science 3 7%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 16 35%
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 01 September 2018.
All research outputs
#16,480,280
of 24,319,828 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#7,202
of 13,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,261
of 338,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#167
of 296 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,319,828 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 13,363 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 338,340 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 296 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.