Cited by 221Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications

A diffusion MRI tractography connectome of the mouse brain and comparison with neuronal tracer data

Open access
Calabrese, Evan, Badea, Alexandra, Cofer, Gary, Qi, Yi, Johnson, G. Allan·2015·Cerebral Cortex

Abstract

Interest in structural brain connectivity has grown with the understanding that abnormal neural connections may play a role in neurologic and psychiatric diseases. Small animal connectivity mapping techniques are particularly important for identifying aberrant connectivity in disease models. Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging tractography can provide nondestructive, 3D, brain-wide connectivity maps, but has historically been limited by low spatial resolution, low signal-to-noise ratio, and the difficulty in estimating multiple fiber orientations within a single image voxel. Small animal diffusion tractography can be substantially improved through the combination of ex vivo MRI with exogenous contrast agents, advanced diffusion acquisition and reconstruction techniques, and probabilistic fiber tracking. Here, we present a comprehensive, probabilistic tractography connectome of the mouse brain at microscopic resolution, and a comparison of these data with a neuronal tracer-based connectivity data from the Allen Brain Atlas. This work serves as a reference database for future tractography studies in the mouse brain, and demonstrates the fundamental differences between tractography and neuronal tracer data.

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 · 10.1093/cercor/bhv121

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Opting against SIFT2 provides a more direct comparison between our results and similar studies that used Allen tracer data without reference to spatial embedding.

    “This also provides a more direct comparison between our results and those of similar studies that have used the Allen tracer data to benchmark tractography performance without reference to the role of spatial embedding (Aydogan et al., 2018; Calabrese et al., 2015; Chen et al., 2015).”
  • DTI-based connectomes correspond poorly with neuron tracer data.

    “DTI-based connectomes have particular limitations, as they have been shown to correspond poorly with neuron tracer data (Calabrese, Badea, Cofer, Qi, & Johnson, 2015).”

    From Functional and structural connectome properties in the 5XFAD transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease (2018) · cites this paper as Calabrese, Badea, Cofer, Qi, & Johnson, 2015

  • Structure-function modeling using MRI data suffers from inherent limitations in DWI-tractography that have not been overcome by state-of-the-art acquisition and processing approaches.

    “structure-function modeling using MRI data suffers from a number of inherent limitations in DWI-tractography that have not been overcome by state-of-the-art acquisition and processing approaches (Calabrese et al., 2015; Donahue et al., 2016; Reveley et al., 2015; Thomas et al., 2014).”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Calabrese, E., Badea, A., Cofer, G., Qi, Y., & Johnson, G. A.
Affiliations
Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Calabrese, Evan
Venue
Cerebral Cortex
Published
2015-06-05
Volume
25
Issue
11
Pages
4628-4637
ISSN
  • 1047-3211 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2199
OpenAlex
W2169239134
Cited by
221
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 3
FWCI
17.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Cerebral Cortex (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DukeSpace (Duke University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (1s10od010683-01)
  • National Institute on Aging (K01AG041211)
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (P41EB015897)
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, structural brain connectivity, probabilistic tractography, Allen Brain Atlas, ex vivo MRI, exogenous contrast agents
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain, Contrast Media, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Male, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Models, Neurological, Neural Pathways, Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Mice, Connectome

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