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

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":0.0000,"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.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信