TY - JOUR
T1 - Fiber tractography bundle segmentation depends on scanner effects, vendor effects, acquisition resolution, diffusion sampling scheme, diffusion sensitization, and bundle segmentation workflow
AU - Schilling, Kurt G
AU - Tax, Chantal M W
AU - Rheault, Francois
AU - Hansen, Colin
AU - Yang, Qi
AU - Yeh, Fang-Cheng
AU - Cai, Leon
AU - Anderson, Adam W
AU - Landman, Bennett A
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation Career Award #1452485, the National Institutes of Health under award numbers R01EB017230, and T32EB001628, and in part by ViSE/VICTR VR3029 and the National Center for Research Resources, Grant UL1 RR024975–01. CMWT was supported by a Sir Henry Wellcome Fellowship (215944/Z/19/Z) and a Veni grant (17331) from the Dutch Research Council (NWO).
Funding Information:
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation Career Award #1452485, the National Institutes of Health under award numbers R01EB017230, and T32EB001628, and in part by ViSE/VICTR VR3029 and the National Center for Research Resources, Grant UL1 RR024975?01. CMWT was supported by a Sir Henry Wellcome Fellowship (215944/Z/19/Z) and a Veni grant (17331) from the Dutch Research Council (NWO). The data for this study were selected from two open-sourced multi-subject, multi-scanner, and multi-protocol benchmark databases: the MASiVar (Alexander et al. 2019) and MUSHAC datasets (Jones et al. 2018; Novikov et al. 2018) ? thus the data is freely available as found in associated references. 1.Cai, L.Y. et al. MASiVar: Multisite, Multiscanner, and Multisubject Acquisitions for Studying Variability in Diffusion Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging. bioRxiv, 2020: p. 2020.12.03.408567. 2.Ning, L. et al. Cross-scanner and cross-protocol multi-shell diffusion MRI data harmonization: Algorithms and results. NeuroImage, 2020. 221: p. 117128. 3.Tax, C.M. et al. Cross-scanner and cross-protocol diffusion MRI data harmonization: A benchmark database and evaluation of algorithms. Neuroimage, 2019. 195: p. 285?299. KS: Conceptualization; Formal analysis; Investigation; Methodology; Writing;, CT: Conceptualization; Data curation; Writing, FR: Investigation; Methodology; Software, CH: Investigation; Methodology; Data curation, QY: Investigation; Methodology, FY: Conceptualization; Investigation; Methodology; Writing; Software, LC: Investigation; Methodology; Data curation, AA: Conceptualization; Methodology, BL: Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Funding acquisition; Investigation; Methodology; Project administration; Resources; Supervision
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021
PY - 2021/11/15
Y1 - 2021/11/15
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Bundle segmentation
KW - Harmonization
KW - Reproducibility
KW - Tractography
KW - White matter
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85112129081&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118451
DO - 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118451
M3 - Article
C2 - 34358660
SN - 1053-8119
VL - 242
SP - 1
EP - 19
JO - NeuroImage
JF - NeuroImage
M1 - 118451
ER -