Cited by 40Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies

A framework to analyze partial volume effect on gray matter mean diffusivity measurements

KOO, B, HUA, N, CHOI, C, RONEN, I, LEE, J, KIM, D·2009·NeuroImage

Abstract

Analyzing gray matter diffusion properties can be challenging due to possible measurement biases originating from averaging of gray matter (GM) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) signals. Therefore, a better characterization of CSF contamination effects in different cortical regions is required in order to disentangle actual changes in microstructure of GM itself from changes due to other effects such as macroscopic morphological changes. We propose a localized analysis framework for the CSF contamination effect on GM mean diffusivity measurement and applied this framework to measurements on 15 subjects. Our proposed modeling framework was compared to fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) DTI technique from the same subjects. The results of our studies suggest that GM mean diffusivity value was significantly biased by the CSF contamination effect, and that the amount of contamination strongly depended on the local morphology of the peripheral brain. Expected biases had their maxima in the motor and the somatosensory association cortex, and their minima in mid and inferior temporal areas of the brain where the cortical thicknesses are particularly pronounced. We conclude from our studies that regional differences in tissue compounding ratio must be taken into account when assessing localized GF diffusivity differences.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.07.064

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
KOO, B., HUA, N., CHOI, C., RONEN, I., LEE, J., & KIM, D.
Affiliations
  • Hanyang University (KR)
  • Boston University (US)
  • National Medical Center (KR)
Corresponding author
KIM, D
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-01-01
Volume
44
Issue
1
Pages
136-144
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2040199251
Cited by
40
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
0.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The Royal Society of Chemistry’s Journals, Books and Databases (The Royal Society of Chemistry) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
Keywords
partial volume effect, cerebrospinal fluid contamination, diffusion tensor imaging, cortical thickness, motor cortex, somatosensory association cortex, inferior temporal cortex, measurement bias
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Cerebrospinal Fluid, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Male, Radionuclide Imaging, Artifacts, Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging

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