Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 309

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of gradient encoding schemes for diffusion‐tensor MRI

Open access
Hasan, Khader M., Parker, Dennis L., Alexander, Andrew L.·2001·Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Abstract

The accuracy of single diffusion tensor MRI (DT‐MRI) measurements depends upon the encoding scheme used. In this study, the diffusion tensor accuracy of several strategies for DT‐MRI encoding are compared. The encoding strategies are based upon heuristic, numerically optimized, and regular polyhedra schemes. The criteria for numerical optimization include the minimum tensor variance (MV), minimum force (MF), minimum potential energy (ME), and minimum condition number. The regular polyhedra scheme includes variations of the icosahedron. Analytical comparisons and Monte Carlo simulations show that the icosahedron scheme is optimum for six encoding directions. The MV, MF, and ME solutions for six directions are functionally equivalent to the icosahedron scheme. Two commonly used heuristic DT‐MRI encoding schemes with six directions, which are based upon the geometric landmarks of a cube (vertices, edge centers, and face centers), are found to be suboptimal. For more than six encoding directions, many methods are able to generate a set of equivalent optimum encoding directions including the regular polyhedra, and the ME, MF and MV numerical optimization solutions. For seven directions, a previously described heuristic encoding scheme (tetrahedral plus x, y, z) was also found to be optimum. This study indicates that there is no significant advantage to using more than six encoding directions as long as an optimum encoding is used for six directions. Future DT‐MRI studies are necessary to validate these observations. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2001;13:769–780. © 2001 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jmri.1107

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 25 references

Cited by

See all 309

Metadata

Authors
Hasan, K. M., Parker, D. L., & Alexander, A. L.
Venue
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-04-23
Volume
13
Issue
5
Pages
769-780
ISSN
  • 1053-1807 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-2586
OpenAlex
W2157766167
Cited by
309
References
25
FWCI
7.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of gradient encoding schemes for diffusion‐tensor MRI. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jmri.1107
The paper
Hasan, K. M., Parker, D. L., & Alexander, A. L. (2001). Comparison of gradient encoding schemes for diffusion‐tensor MRI. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.1107

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.