↓ Skip to main content

Impact of region-of-interest method on quantitative analysis of DTI data in the optic tracts

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Imaging, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Impact of region-of-interest method on quantitative analysis of DTI data in the optic tracts
Published in
BMC Medical Imaging, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12880-016-0145-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ylva Lilja, Oscar Gustafsson, Maria Ljungberg, Daniel Nilsson, Göran Starck

Abstract

To extract DTI parameters from a specific structure, a region of interest (ROI) must be defined. ROI selection in small structures is challenging; the final measurement results could be affected due to the significant impact of small geometrical errors. In this study the optic tracts were analyzed with the aim to assess differences in DTI parameters due to ROI method and to identify the most reliable method. Images of 20 healthy subjects were acquired. Fractional anisotropy (FA) was extracted from the optic tracts by four different ROI methods. Manual tracing was performed in 1) the b0 image and 2) a T1-weighted image registered to the FA image. Semi-automatic segmentation was performed based on 3) tractography and 4) the FA-skeleton algorithm in the tract-based spatial statistics (TBSS) framework. Results were analyzed with regard to ROI method as well as to inter-scan, intra-rater and inter-rater reliability. The resulting FA values divided the ROI methods into two groups that differed significantly: 1) the FA-skeleton and the b0 methods showed higher FA values compared to 2) the tractography and the T1-weighted methods. The intra- and inter-rater variabilities were similar for all methods, except for the tractography method where the inter-rater variability was higher. The FA-skeleton method had a better reproducibility than the other methods. Choice of ROI method was found to be highly influential on FA values when the optic tracts were analyzed. The FA-skeleton method performed the best, yielding low variability and high repeatability.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 24%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 14%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 7 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 31%
Neuroscience 5 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 10 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 August 2016.
All research outputs
#18,466,751
of 22,881,964 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Imaging
#368
of 600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,847
of 354,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Imaging
#5
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,964 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 600 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 354,304 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.