Comparison of modelled diffusion-derived electrical conductivities found using magnetic resonance imaging.

IF 2.3 Frontiers in radiology Pub Date : 2025-01-22 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fradi.2025.1492479
Sasha Hakhu, Leland S Hu, Scott Beeman, Rosalind J Sadleir
{"title":"Comparison of modelled diffusion-derived electrical conductivities found using magnetic resonance imaging.","authors":"Sasha Hakhu, Leland S Hu, Scott Beeman, Rosalind J Sadleir","doi":"10.3389/fradi.2025.1492479","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Magnetic resonance-based electrical conductivity imaging offers a promising new contrast mechanism to enhance disease diagnosis. Conductivity tensor imaging (CTI) combines data from MR diffusion microstructure imaging to reconstruct electrodeless low-frequency conductivity images. However, different microstructure imaging methods rely on varying diffusion models and parameters, leading to divergent tissue conductivity estimates. This study investigates the variability in conductivity predictions across different microstructure models and evaluates their alignment with experimental observations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used publicly available diffusion databases from neurotypical adults to extract microstructure parameters for three diffusion-based brain models: Neurite Orientation Dispersion and Density Imaging (NODDI), Soma and Neurite Density Imaging (SANDI), and Spherical Mean technique (SMT) conductivity predictions were calculated for gray matter (GM) and white matter (WM) tissues using each model. Comparative analyses were performed to assess the range of predicted conductivities and the consistency between bilateral tissue conductivities for each method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Significant variability in conductivity estimates was observed across the three models. Each method predicted distinct conductivity values for GM and WM tissues, with notable differences in the range of conductivities observed for specific tissue examples. Despite the variability, many WM and GM tissues exhibited symmetric bilateral conductivities within each microstructure model. SMT yielded conductivity estimates closer to values reported in experimental studies, while none of the methods aligned with spectroscopic models of tissue conductivity.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>Our findings highlight substantial discrepancies in tissue conductivity estimates generated by different diffusion models, underscoring the challenge of selecting an appropriate model for low-frequency electrical conductivity imaging. SMT demonstrated better alignment with experimental results. However other microstructure models may produce better tissue discrimination.</p>","PeriodicalId":73101,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in radiology","volume":"5 ","pages":"1492479"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11794185/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fradi.2025.1492479","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Magnetic resonance-based electrical conductivity imaging offers a promising new contrast mechanism to enhance disease diagnosis. Conductivity tensor imaging (CTI) combines data from MR diffusion microstructure imaging to reconstruct electrodeless low-frequency conductivity images. However, different microstructure imaging methods rely on varying diffusion models and parameters, leading to divergent tissue conductivity estimates. This study investigates the variability in conductivity predictions across different microstructure models and evaluates their alignment with experimental observations.

Methods: We used publicly available diffusion databases from neurotypical adults to extract microstructure parameters for three diffusion-based brain models: Neurite Orientation Dispersion and Density Imaging (NODDI), Soma and Neurite Density Imaging (SANDI), and Spherical Mean technique (SMT) conductivity predictions were calculated for gray matter (GM) and white matter (WM) tissues using each model. Comparative analyses were performed to assess the range of predicted conductivities and the consistency between bilateral tissue conductivities for each method.

Results: Significant variability in conductivity estimates was observed across the three models. Each method predicted distinct conductivity values for GM and WM tissues, with notable differences in the range of conductivities observed for specific tissue examples. Despite the variability, many WM and GM tissues exhibited symmetric bilateral conductivities within each microstructure model. SMT yielded conductivity estimates closer to values reported in experimental studies, while none of the methods aligned with spectroscopic models of tissue conductivity.

Discussion and conclusion: Our findings highlight substantial discrepancies in tissue conductivity estimates generated by different diffusion models, underscoring the challenge of selecting an appropriate model for low-frequency electrical conductivity imaging. SMT demonstrated better alignment with experimental results. However other microstructure models may produce better tissue discrimination.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利用磁共振成像发现的模拟扩散衍生电导率的比较。
导读:基于磁共振的电导率成像为增强疾病诊断提供了一种很有前景的新型对比机制。电导率张量成像(CTI)结合磁共振扩散微观结构成像数据来重建无电极低频电导率图像。然而,不同的微观结构成像方法依赖于不同的扩散模型和参数,导致不同的组织电导率估计。本研究调查了不同微观结构模型中电导率预测的可变性,并评估了它们与实验观察的一致性。方法:我们使用公开的神经典型成人扩散数据库提取三种基于扩散的脑模型的微观结构参数:神经突定向弥散和密度成像(NODDI)、Soma和神经突密度成像(SANDI),并使用每种模型计算灰质(GM)和白质(WM)组织的球面平均技术(SMT)电导率预测。进行比较分析以评估每种方法的预测电导率范围和双侧组织电导率之间的一致性。结果:在三个模型中观察到电导率估计的显著差异。每种方法预测转基因和WM组织的不同电导率值,在特定组织示例中观察到的电导率范围存在显着差异。尽管存在差异,许多WM和GM组织在每个微观结构模型中都表现出对称的双边电导率。SMT获得的电导率估计值更接近实验研究报告的值,而没有一种方法与组织电导率的光谱模型一致。讨论和结论:我们的研究结果强调了不同扩散模型产生的组织电导率估计值的实质性差异,强调了选择合适的低频电导率成像模型的挑战。SMT与实验结果吻合较好。然而,其他微观结构模型可能产生更好的组织识别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Ultra-lightweight uncertainty-aware ensemble for large-scale multi-class medical MRI diagnosis. Histogram analysis of diffusion-weighted imaging with a fractional order calculus model in breast cancer: diagnostic performance and associations with prognostic factors. Diagnosis based image quality assessment and enhancement for low dose CT image. Flow diverter implantation for CTA-negative giant vertebral artery dissection aneurysm: a case report. Endovascular coiling vs. surgical clipping for ruptured intracranial aneurysms: an in-hospital outcome win ratio analysis from a Colombian tertiary center.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1