Cited by 418Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications

Quantitative evaluation of 10 tractography algorithms on a realistic diffusion MR phantom

Open access
Fillard, Pierre, Descoteaux, Maxime, Goh, Alvina, Gouttard, Sylvain, Jeurissen, Ben, Malcolm, James, Ramirez-Manzanares, Alonso, Reisert, Marco +5 more·2011·NeuroImage

Abstract

As it provides the only method for mapping white matter fibers in vivo, diffusion MRI tractography is gaining importance in clinical and neuroscience research. However, despite the increasing availability of different diffusion models and tractography algorithms, it remains unclear how to select the optimal fiber reconstruction method, given certain imaging parameters. Consequently, it is of utmost importance to have a quantitative comparison of these models and algorithms and a deeper understanding of the corresponding strengths and weaknesses. In this work, we use a common dataset with known ground truth and a reproducible methodology to quantitatively evaluate the performance of various diffusion models and tractography algorithms. To examine a wide range of methods, the dataset, but not the ground truth, was released to the public for evaluation in a contest, the "Fiber Cup". 10 fiber reconstruction methods were evaluated. The results provide evidence that: 1. For high SNR datasets, diffusion models such as (fiber) orientation distribution functions correctly model the underlying fiber distribution and can be used in conjunction with streamline tractography, and 2. For medium or low SNR datasets, a prior on the spatial smoothness of either the diffusion model or the fibers is recommended for correct modelling of the fiber distribution and proper tractography results. The phantom dataset, the ground truth fibers, the evaluation methodology and the results obtained so far will remain publicly available on: http://www.lnao.fr/spip.php?rubrique79 to serve as a comparison basis for existing or new tractography methods. New results can be submitted to fibercup09@gmail.com and updates will be published on the webpage.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.01.032

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Ex vivo imaging and tracing or physically and numerically simulated phantoms allow validation to some extent, and in specific circumstances such as basic fiber configurations.

    “Ex vivo imaging and tracing17–23 or physically24–30 and numerically simulated phantoms31–34 allow validation to some extent, and in specific circumstances such as basic fiber configurations.”
  • Previous studies have reported high invalid-connection ratios under simplified conditions.

    “Previous studies have reported high invalid-connection ratios under simplified conditions26, 38”
  • There is no consensus on the best tractography algorithm.

    “While many research studies have been performed to compare different tractography algorithms (Bastiani et al., 2012; Fillard et al., 2011; Petrov et al., 2017; Pujol et al., 2015; Sinke et al., 2018; Wilkins et al., 2015; Zhan et al., 2015), there is no consensus on “the best algorithm.””

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fillard, P., Descoteaux, M., Goh, A., Gouttard, S., Jeurissen, B., Malcolm, J., Ramirez-Manzanares, A., Reisert, M., Sakaie, K., Tensaouti, F., Yo, T., Mangin, J.-F., & Poupon, C.
Affiliations
  • Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies du numérique (FR)
  • Université de Sherbrooke (CA)
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
  • University of Utah (US)
  • University of Antwerp (BE)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • University Medical Center Freiburg (DE)
  • Cleveland Clinic (US)
  • Inserm (FR)
  • Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences (DE)
  • Commissariat à l'Énergie Atomique et aux Énergies Alternatives (FR)
Corresponding author
Fillard, Pierre
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-05
Volume
56
Issue
1
Pages
220-234
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1979757232
Cited by
418
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 44 · 2014: 40 · 2013: 52 · 2012: 30
FWCI
32.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • National University of Singapore (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Keywords
diffusion MRI tractography, white matter fiber reconstruction, diffusion models, orientation distribution function, signal-to-noise ratio
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Brain, Brain Mapping, Humans, Neural Pathways, Phantoms, Imaging, Diffusion Tensor 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