Cited by 2,479Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications

White matter integrity, fiber count, and other fallacies: The do's and don'ts of diffusion MRI

Jones, Derek K., Knösche, Thomas R., Turner, Robert·2013·NeuroImage

Abstract

Diffusion-weighted MRI (DW-MRI) has been increasingly used in imaging neuroscience over the last decade. An early form of this technique, diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) was rapidly implemented by major MRI scanner companies as a scanner selling point. Due to the ease of use of such implementations, and the plausibility of some of their results, DTI was leapt on by imaging neuroscientists who saw it as a powerful and unique new tool for exploring the structural connectivity of human brain. However, DTI is a rather approximate technique, and its results have frequently been given implausible interpretations that have escaped proper critique and have appeared misleadingly in journals of high reputation. In order to encourage the use of improved DW-MRI methods, which have a better chance of characterizing the actual fiber structure of white matter, and to warn against the misuse and misinterpretation of DTI, we review the physics of DW-MRI, indicate currently preferred methodology, and explain the limits of interpretation of its results. We conclude with a list of 'Do's and Don'ts' which define good practice in this expanding area of imaging neuroscience.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.06.081

Cites

191 of 191 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?

  • The behaviour of DTI indices in the human brain, which is characterized by a high density of crossing fibre that influence DTI measures, is only partially understood and remains speculative.

    “We caution that the behaviour of the DTI indices in the human brain, which is characterized by a high density of crossing fibre that influence DTI measures (Jeurissen et al., 2013), is only partially understood and remains speculative (Jones et al., 2013).”
  • DTI alterations may stem from a variety of tissue changes including altered crossing fibres, permeability of the axonal membrane, inflammation, or oedema.

    “DTI alterations may stem from a variety of tissue changes including altered crossing fibres, permeability of the axonal membrane, inflammation, or oedema (Jones et al., 2013).”
  • DTI metrics are not specific to particular cellular or molecular processes.

    “However, DTI metrics are not specific to particular cellular or molecular processes.”
  • Raw streamline count is not a quantitative measure of connection density.

    “This limitation is often expressed as the mantra “streamline count is not quantitative.””
  • NOS does not provide a truly quantitative measure of connection strength because of the difference in resolution between the measured dMRI signal and actual axon dimensions.

    “However, because of the difference in resolution between the measured dMRI signal and actual axon dimensions (as described in Section 3.3: “Connection density biases”), many studies have emphasized that NOS does not provide a truly quantitative measure of connection strength (Jones, 2010; Jones et al., 2013; Sotiropoulos and Zalesky, 2019; Yeh et al., 2020).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

9 of the 200 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Le Bihan, 1985, In vivo magnetic resonance imaging of diffusion I, C. R. Acad. Sci. II, 301, 1109
  2. Tournier, 2009, How many diffusion gradient directions are required for HARDI?, Proc. Int. Soc. Magn. Reson. Med., 17, 358

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jones, D. K., Knösche, T. R., & Turner, R.
Affiliations
  • Cardiff University (GB)
  • Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences (DE)
Corresponding author
Jones, Derek K.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-06
Volume
73
Pages
239-254
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2117987496
Cited by
2,479
References
200
Citations by year
2026: 107 · 2025: 134 · 2024: 122 · 2023: 147 · 2022: 175 · 2021: 233 · 2020: 205 · 2019: 201 · 2018: 188 · 2017: 195 · 2016: 204 · 2015: 176 · 2014: 133 · 2013: 103 · 2012: 9
FWCI
93.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • 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-weighted imaging, diffusion tensor imaging, white matter integrity, fiber count, structural connectivity
MeSH terms
Brain, Brain Mapping, Cell Count, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Nerve Fibers

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