A framework for spatial normalization and voxelwise analysis of diffusion propagators in multiple MAP-MRI data sets
Avram, A. V.; Bernstein, A. S.; Irfanoglu, M. O.; Weinkauf, C. C.; Cota, M.; Gai, N.; Simmons, A.; Moses, A.; Turtzo, L. C.; Jikaria, N.; Latour, L.; Pham, D.; Butman, J. A.; Basser, P. J.
Show abstract
We describe a pipeline for constructing a study-specific template of diffusion propagators measured with mean apparent propagator (MAP) MRI that supports direct voxelwise analysis of differences between propagators across multiple data sets. The pipeline leverages the fact that MAP-MRI is a generalization of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and combines simple and robust processing steps from existing tensor-based image registration methods. First, we compute a DTI study template which provides the reference frame and scaling parameters needed to construct a standardized set of MAP-MRI basis functions at each voxel in template space. Next, we transform each subjects diffusion data, including diffusion weighted images (DWIs) and gradient directions, from native to template space using the corresponding tensor-based deformation fields. Finally, we fit MAP coefficients in template space to the transformed DWIs of each subject using the standardized template of MAP basis functions. The consistency of MAP basis functions across all data sets in template space allows us to: 1. compute a template of propagators by directly averaging MAP coefficients and 2. quantify voxelwise differences between co-registered propagators using the angular dissimilarity, or a probability distance metric, such as the Jensen-Shannon Divergence. We illustrate the application of this method by generating a template of MAP propagators for a cohort of healthy volunteers and show a proof-of-principle example of how this pipeline may be used to detect subtle differences between propagators in a single-subject longitudinal clinical data set. The ability to standardize and analyze multiple clinical MAP-MRI data sets could improve assessments in cross-sectional and single-subject longitudinal clinical studies seeking to detect subtle microstructural changes, such as those occurring in mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), or during the early stages of neurodegenerative diseases, or cancer.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- In vivo Correlation Tensor MRI reveals microscopic kurtosis in the human brain on a clinical 3T scanner 98%
- High-fidelity approximation of grid- and shell-based sampling schemes from undersampled DSI using compressed sensing: Post mortem validation 97%
- Multi-parametric quantitative spinal cord MRI with unified signal readout and image denoising 97%
Similar papers in this journal
- High-frequency longitudinal white matter diffusion- & myelin-based MRI database: reliability and variability 98%
- Mapping caudolenticular gray matter bridges in the human brain striatum through diffusion magnetic resonance imaging and tractography 97%
- The impact of multiband and in-plane acceleration on white matter microstructure analysis 97%
Similar papers in this journal
- Fast and reliable quantitative measures of white matter development with magnetic resonance fingerprinting 98%
- Diffusion kurtosis MRI tracks gray matter myelin content in the primate cerebral cortex 97%
- ACID: A Comprehensive Toolbox for Image Processing and Modeling of Brain, Spinal Cord, and Post-mortem Diffusion MRI Data 97%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Test-retest reliability and long-term stability of 3-tissue constrained spherical deconvolution methods for analyzing diffusion MRI data 97%
- MASiVar: Multisite, Multiscanner, and Multisubject Acquisitions for Studying Variability in Diffusion Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging 96%
- Axisymmetric diffusion kurtosis imaging with Rician bias correction: A simulation study 96%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.