Abstract

When investigating connectivity and microstructure of white matter pathways of the brain using diffusion tractography bundle segmentation, it is important to understand potential confounds and sources of variation in the process. While cross-scanner and cross-protocol effects on diffusion microstructure measures are well described (in particular fractional anisotropy and mean diffusivity), it is unknown how potential sources of variation effect bundle segmentation results, which features of the bundle are most affected, where variability occurs, nor how these sources of variation depend upon the method used to reconstruct and segment bundles. In this study, we investigate six potential sources of variation, or confounds, for bundle segmentation: variation (1) across scan repeats, (2) across scanners, (3) across vendors (4) across acquisition resolution, (5) across diffusion schemes, and (6) across diffusion sensitization. We employ four different bundle segmentation workflows on two benchmark multi-subject cross-scanner and cross-protocol databases, and investigate reproducibility and biases in volume overlap, shape geometry features of fiber pathways, and microstructure features within the pathways. We find that the effects of acquisition protocol, in particular acquisition resolution, result in the lowest reproducibility of tractography and largest variation of features, followed by vendor-effects, scanner-effects, and finally diffusion scheme and b-value effects which had similar reproducibility as scan-rescan variation. However, confounds varied both across pathways and across segmentation workflows, with some bundle segmentation workflows more (or less) robust to sources of variation. Despite variability, bundle dissection is consistently able to recover the same location of pathways in the deep white matter, with variation at the gray matter/ white matter interface. Next, we show that differences due to the choice of bundle segmentation workflows are larger than any other studied confound, with low-to-moderate overlap of the same intended pathway when segmented using different methods. Finally, quantifying microstructure features within a pathway, we show that tractography adds variability over-and-above that which exists due to noise, scanner effects, and acquisition effects. Overall, these confounds need to be considered when harmonizing diffusion datasets, interpreting or combining data across sites, and when attempting to understand the successes and limitations of different methodologies in the design and development of new tractography or bundle segmentation methods.

Highlights

  • Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging has proven valuable to characterize tissue microstructure in health and disease (Alexander et al, 2019; Jones et al, 2018; Novikov et al, 2018)

  • Using the binary regions defined in the reference scan-space only were used as the same region-of-interest across all effects, in order to isolate each source of variation while keeping ROIs constant

  • For the databases investigated here, we have shown that the process of tractography bundle segmentation shows significant variation across different acquisition resolution and across different vendors, with less, albeit significant, variation across scanners and across diffusion sensitization

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI) has proven valuable to characterize tissue microstructure in health and disease (Alexander et al, 2019; Jones et al, 2018; Novikov et al, 2018). The use of dMRI fiber tractography to virtually dissect scanners, differences in acquisition protocol parameters, and differences due to processing pipelines, amongst others These sources of variance challenge the quantitative nature of derived measures of microstructure and connectivity, and hinder the ability to interpret different findings or combine different datasets. There is significant interest in combining data from different sites to increase statistical power and benefit from multi-center recruitment abilities (Mirzaalian et al, 2016; L Ning et al, 2020; Zhong et al, 2020; Cetin Karayumak et al, 2019; KM Huynh et al, 2019; Vishwesh Nath et al, 2018; Yu et al, 2018; Mirzaalian et al, 2018; Fortin et al, 2017), and it is clear that these differences need to be accounted for, or removed, prior to data aggregation or joint statistical analysis

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call