Cited by 106Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Diffusion Tensor Tractography: Evaluation of Anatomic Accuracy of Different Fiber Tracking Software Packages

Feigl, Guenther C., Hiergeist, Wolfgang, Fellner, Claudia, Schebesch, Karl-Michael M., Doenitz, Christian, Finkenzeller, Thomas, Brawanski, Alexander, Schlaier, Juergen·2014·World Neurosurgery

Abstract

Background Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI)-based tractography has become an integral part of preoperative diagnostic imaging in many neurosurgical centers, and other nonsurgical specialties depend increasingly on DTI tractography as a diagnostic tool. The aim of this study was to analyze the anatomic accuracy of visualized white matter fiber pathways using different, readily available DTI tractography software programs.Methods Magnetic resonance imaging scans of the head of 20 healthy volunteers were acquired using a Siemens Symphony TIM 1.5T scanner and a 12-channel head array coil. The standard settings of the scans in this study were 12 diffusion directions and 5-mm slices. The fornices were chosen as an anatomic structure for the comparative fiber tracking. Identical data sets were loaded into nine different fiber tracking packages that used different algorithms. The nine software packages and algorithms used were NeuroQLab (modified tensor deflection [TEND] algorithm), Sörensen DTI task card (modified streamline tracking technique algorithm), Siemens DTI module (modified fourth-order Runge-Kutta algorithm), six different software packages from Trackvis (interpolated streamline algorithm, modified FACT algorithm, second-order Runge-Kutta algorithm, Q-ball [FACT algorithm], tensorline algorithm, Q-ball [second-order Runge-Kutta algorithm]), DTI Query (modified streamline tracking technique algorithm), Medinria (modified TEND algorithm), Brainvoyager (modified TEND algorithm), DTI Studio modified FACT algorithm, and the BrainLab DTI module based on the modified Runge-Kutta algorithm. Three examiners (a neuroradiologist, a magnetic resonance imaging physicist, and a neurosurgeon) served as examiners. They were double-blinded with respect to the test subject and the fiber tracking software used in the presented images. Each examiner evaluated 301 images. The examiners were instructed to evaluate screenshots from the different programs based on two main criteria: (i) anatomic accuracy of the course of the displayed fibers and (ii) number of fibers displayed outside the anatomic boundaries.Results The mean overall grade for anatomic accuracy was 2.2 (range, 1.1-3.6) with a standard deviation (SD) of 0.9. The mean overall grade for incorrectly displayed fibers was 2.5 (range, 1.6-3.5) with a SD of 0.6. The mean grade of the overall program ranking was 2.3 with a SD of 0.6. The overall mean grade of the program ranked number one (NeuroQLab) was 1.7 (range, 1.5-2.8). The mean overall grade of the program ranked last (BrainLab iPlan Cranial 2.6 DTI Module) was 3.3 (range, 1.7-4). The difference between the mean grades of these two programs was statistically highly significant (P < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference between the programs ranked 1-3: NeuroQLab, Sörensen DTI Task Card, and Siemens DTI module.Conclusions The results of this study show that there is a statistically significant difference in the anatomic accuracy of the tested DTI fiber tracking programs. Although incorrectly displayed fibers could lead to wrong conclusions in the neurosciences field, which relies heavily on this noninvasive imaging technique, incorrectly displayed fibers in neurosurgery could lead to surgical decisions potentially harmful for the patient if used without intraoperative cortical stimulation. DTI fiber tracking presents a valuable noninvasive preoperative imaging tool, which requires further validation after important standardization of the acquisition and processing techniques currently available.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.wneu.2013.01.004

Cites

33 of 33 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?

  • In vivo tractography of the human brain has been evaluated by subjective assessment of plausibility or qualitative visual agreement with post-mortem Klingler-like dissections.

    “in vivo tractography of the human brain has been evaluated by subjective assessment of plausibility9, 10 or qualitative visual agreement with post-mortem Klingler-like dissections11, 12.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Feigl, G. C., Hiergeist, W., Fellner, C., Schebesch, K.-M. M., Doenitz, C., Finkenzeller, T., Brawanski, A., & Schlaier, J.
Affiliations
University Hospital Regensburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Feigl, Guenther C.
Venue
World Neurosurgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-01
Volume
81
Issue
1
Pages
144-150
ISSN
1878-8750 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2166460885
Cited by
106
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 8
FWCI
11.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • World Neurosurgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Regensburg Publication Server (University of Regensburg) (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
diffusion tensor tractography, fornix, streamline tracking, Q-ball imaging, Runge-Kutta method, interobserver agreement, preoperative neuroimaging
MeSH terms
Adult, Algorithms, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Male, Middle Aged, Nerve Fibers, Neural Pathways, Neurosurgery, Radiology, Software, Reproducibility of Results, Anisotropy, Young Adult, 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