REKINDLE: Robust Extraction of Kurtosis INDices with Linear Estimation

Magnetic Resonance in Medicine

Volumn 73, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 794-808

  Tax, Chantal M W ^a   Otte, Willem M ^a,b   Viergever, Max A ^a   Dijkhuizen, Rick M ^a   Leemans, Alexander ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Diffusion MRI; DKI; DTI; Linear; Outliers; Robust estimation

Indexed keywords

DIFFUSION; EXTRACTION; HIGHER ORDER STATISTICS; ITERATIVE METHODS; LEAST SQUARES APPROXIMATIONS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; RESTORATION; STATISTICS; TENSORS;

DIFFUSION KURTOSIS IMAGING; DIFFUSION MRIS; LINEAR; LINEAR LEAST SQUARES; NON-GAUSSIAN DIFFUSIONS; OUTLIERS; ROBUST ESTIMATION; TISSUE CHARACTERIZATION;

DIFFUSION TENSOR IMAGING;

ADULT; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DIFFUSION; DIFFUSION KURATOSIS IMAGING; DIFFUSION TENSOR IMAGING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LINEAR SYSTEM; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; RELIABILITY; ROBUST ESTIMATION OF TENSORS BY OUTLIER REJECTION; ROBUST EXTRACTION OF KURTOSIS INDICES WITH LINEAR ESTIMATION; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; ANATOMY AND HISTOLOGY; BRAIN; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; PROCEDURES; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ADULT; ALGORITHMS; BRAIN; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DIFFUSION TENSOR IMAGING; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; LEAST-SQUARES ANALYSIS; LINEAR MODELS; MALE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84921436369     PISSN: 07403194     EISSN: 15222594     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.25165     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Carballedo A, Amico F, Ugwu I, Fagan AJ, Fahey C, Morris D, Meaney JF, Leemans A, Frodl T. Reduced fractional anisotropy in the uncinate fasciculus in patients with major depression carrying the met-allele of the Val66Met brain-derived neurotrophic factor genotype. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet 2012;159B:537-548.
2. Langen M, Leemans A, Johnston P, Ecker C, Daly E, Murphy CM, Dell'acqua F, Durston S, Murphy DG. Fronto-striatal circuitry and inhibitory control in autism: findings from diffusion tensor imaging tractography. Cortex 2012;48:183-193.
3. Reijmer YD, Leemans A, Heringa SM, Wielaard I, Jeurissen B, Koek HL, Biessels GJ. Improved sensitivity to cerebral white matter abnormalities in Alzheimer's disease with spherical deconvolution based tractography. PLoS One 2012;7:e44074.
4. Verhoeven JS, Rommel N, Prodi E, et al. Is there a common neuroanatomical substrate of language deficit between autism spectrum disorder and specific language impairment? Cereb Cortex 2012;22:2263-2271.
5. Wang HC, Hsu JL, Leemans A. Diffusion tensor imaging of vascular parkinsonism: structural changes in cerebral white matter and the association with clinical severity. Arch Neurol 2012;69:1340-1348.
6. Basser PJ, Mattiello J, LeBihan D. Estimation of the effective self-diffusion tensor from the NMR spin echo. J Magn Reson B 1994;103:247-254.
7. Jensen JH, Helpern JA, Ramani A, Lu H, Kaczynski K. Diffusional kurtosis imaging: the quantification of non-gaussian water diffusion by means of magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med 2005;53:1432-1440.
8. Cheung MM, Hui ES, Chan KC, Helpern JA, Qi L, Wu EX. Does diffusion kurtosis imaging lead to better neural tissue characterization? A rodent brain maturation study. Neuroimage 2009;45:386-392.
9. Poot DH, den Dekker AJ, Achten E, Verhoye M, Sijbers J. Optimal experimental design for diffusion kurtosis imaging. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2010;29:819-829.
10. Hansen B, Lund TE, Sangill R, Jespersen SN. Experimentally and computationally fast method for estimation of a mean kurtosis. Magn Reson Med 2013;69:1754-1760.
11. Gooijers J, Leemans A, Van Cauter S, Sunaert S, Swinnen SP, Caeyenberghs K. White matter organization in relation to upper limb motor control in healthy subjects: exploring the added value of diffusion kurtosis imaging. Brain Struct Funct 2013. doi: 10.1007/s00429-013-0590-y.
12. Van Cauter S, Veraart J, Sijbers J, et al. Gliomas: diffusion kurtosis MR imaging in grading. Radiology 2012;263:492-501.
13. Veraart J, Poot DH, Van Hecke W, Blockx I, Van der Linden A, Verhoye M, Sijbers J. More accurate estimation of diffusion tensor parameters using diffusion Kurtosis imaging. Magn Reson Med 2011;65:138-145.
14. Heemskerk AM, Leemans A, Plaisier A, Pieterman K, Lequin MH, Dudink J. Acquisition guidelines and quality assessment tools for analyzing neonatal diffusion tensor MRI data. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:1496-1505.
15. Jones DK, Cercignani M. Twenty-five pitfalls in the analysis of diffusion MRI data. NMR Biomed 2010;23:803-820.
16. Koay CG. Least squares approaches to diffusion tensor estimation. In: Jones DK, editor. Diffusion MRI: theory, methods, and applications. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010.
17. Koay CG, Chang LC, Carew JD, Pierpaoli C, Basser PJ. A unifying theoretical and algorithmic framework for least squares methods of estimation in diffusion tensor imaging. J Magn Reson 2006;182:115-125.
18. Veraart J, Van Hecke W, Sijbers J. Constrained maximum likelihood estimation of the diffusion kurtosis tensor using a Rician noise model. Magn Reson Med 2011;66:678-686.
19. Andersson JL. Maximum a posteriori estimation of diffusion tensor parameters using a Rician noise model: why, how and but. Neuroimage 2008;42:1340-1356.
20. Chang LC, Jones DK, Pierpaoli C. RESTORE: robust estimation of tensors by outlier rejection. Magn Reson Med 2005;53:1088-1095.
21. Chang LC, Walker L, Pierpaoli C. Informed RESTORE: a method for robust estimation of diffusion tensor from low redundancy datasets in the presence of physiological noise artifacts. Magn Reson Med 2012;68:1654-1663.
22. Parker GD, Marshall D, Rosin PL, Drage N, Richmond S, Jones DK. RESDORE: robust estimation in spherical deconvolution by outlier rejection. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of ISMRM, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, 2013. Abstract 3148.
23. Zhou Z, Liu W, Cui J, et al. Automated artifact detection and removal for improved tensor estimation in motion-corrupted DTI data sets using the combination of local binary patterns and 2D partial least squares. Magn Reson Imaging 2011;29:230-242.
24. Zwiers MP. Patching cardiac and head motion artefacts in diffusion-weighted images. Neuroimage 2010;53:565-575.
25. Mangin JF, Poupon C, Clark C, Le Bihan D, Bloch I. Distortion correction and robust tensor estimation for MR diffusion imaging. Med Image Anal 2002;6:191-198.
26. Pannek K, Raffelt D, Bell C, Mathias JL, Rose SE. HOMOR: higher order model outlier rejection for high b-value MR diffusion data. Neuroimage 2012;63:835-842.
27. Veraart J, Sijbers J, Sunaert S, Leemans A, Jeurissen B. Weighted linear least squares estimation of diffusion MRI parameters: strengths, limitations, and pitfalls. Neuroimage 2013;81:335-346.
28. Salvador R, Pena A, Menon DK, Carpenter TA, Pickard JD, Bullmore ET. Formal characterization and extension of the linearized diffusion tensor model. Hum Brain Mapp 2005;24:144-155.
29. Maronna RA, Martin RD, Yohai VJ. Robust statistics. New York: John Wiley; 2006.
30. Carroll RJ, Ruppert D. Robust estimation in heteroscedastic linear models. Ann Stat 1982;10:429-441.
31. Giltinan DM, Carroll RJ, Ruppert D. Some new estimation methods for weighted regression when there are possible outliers. Technometrics 1986;28:219-230.
32. Veraart J, Rajan J, Peeters RR, Leemans A, Sunaert S, Sijbers J. Comprehensive framework for accurate diffusion MRI parameter estimation. Magn Reson Med 2013;70:972-984.
33. Tax CMW, Otte WM, Viergever MA, Dijkhuizen RM, Leemans A. REKINDLE: robust extraction of kurtosis INDices with linear estimation. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of ISMRM, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, 2013. Abstract 0700.
34. Jones DK, Basser PJ. "Squashing peanuts and smashing pumpkins": how noise distorts diffusion-weighted MR data. Magn Reson Med 2004;52:979-993.
35. Bickel PJ. Using residuals robustly I: tests for heteroscedasticity, non-linearity. Ann Stat 1978;6:266-291.
36. Montgomery DC, Runger GC. Applied statistics and probability for engineers. New York: John Wiley; 2010.
37. Meer P, Mintz D, Rosenfeld A, Kim DY. Robust regression methods for computer vision: a review. Int J Comput Vis 1991;6:59-70.
38. Holland PW, Welsch RE. Robust regression using iteratively reweighted least-squares. Commun Stat Theory Methods 1977;6:813-827.
39. Street J, Carroll RJ, Ruppert D. A note on computing robust regression estimates via iteratively reweighted least squares. Am Stat 1988;42:152-154.
40. Jones DK, Horsfield MA, Simmons A. Optimal strategies for measuring diffusion in anisotropic systems by magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med 1999;42:515-525.
41. Leemans A, Jones DK. The B-matrix must be rotated when correcting for subject motion in DTI data. Magn Reson Med 2009;61:1336-1349.
42. Leemans A, Jeurissen B, Sijbers J, Jones DK. ExploreDTI: a graphical toolbox for processing, analyzing, and visualizing diffusion MR data. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of ISMRM, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 2009. Abstract 3537.
43. Landman BA, Mori S, Prince JL. Systematic evaluation of linear and nonlinear DTI estimation methods: an open framework. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual Meeting of ISMRM, Berlin, Germany, 2007. Abstract 1522.
44. Hekimoglu S, Berber M. Effectiveness of robust methods in heterogeneous linear models. J Geod 2003;76:706-713.
45. Aja-Fernandez S, Tristan-Vega A. Influence of noise correlation in multiple-coil statistical models with sum of squares reconstruction. Magn Reson Med 2012;67:580-585.
46. Aja-Fernandez S, Tristan-Vega A, Alberola-Lopez C. Noise estimation in single- and multiple-coil magnetic resonance data based on statistical models. Magn Reson Imaging 2009;27:1397-1409.
47. Henkelman RM. Measurement of signal intensities in the presence of noise in MR images. Med Phys 1985;12:232-233.
48. Koay CG, Ozarslan E, Pierpaoli C. Probabilistic Identification and Estimation of Noise (PIESNO): a self-consistent approach and its applications in MRI. J Magn Reson 2009;199:94-103.
49. Sijbers J, Poot D, den Dekker AJ, Pintjens W. Automatic estimation of the noise variance from the histogram of a magnetic resonance image. Phys Med Biol 2007;52:1335-1348.
50. Coupé P, Manjon JV, Gedamu E, Arnold D, Robles M, Collins DL. Robust Rician noise estimation for MR images. Med Image Anal 2010;14:483-493.
51. Koay CG, Basser PJ. Analytically exact correction scheme for signal extraction from noisy magnitudeMR signals. J Magn Reson 2006;179:317-322.
52. Landman BA, Bazin PL, Prince JL. Estimation and application of spatially variable noise fields in diffusion tensor imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 2009;27:741-751.
53. Manjon JV, Coupe P, Marti-Bonmati L, Collins DL, Robles M. Adaptive non-local means denoising of MR images with spatially varying noise levels. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010;31:192-203.
54. Maximov II, Farrher E, Grinberg F, Shah NJ. Spatially variable Rician noise in magnetic resonance imaging. Med Image Anal 2012;16:536-548.
55. Sijbers J, den Dekker AJ, Van Audekerke J, Verhoye M, Van Dyck D. Estimation of the noise in magnitude MR images. Magn Reson Imaging 1998;16:87-90.
56. Rousseeuw PJ, Croux C. Alternatives to the median absolute deviation. J Am Stat Assoc 1993;88:1273-1283.
57. Tabesh A, Jensen JH, Ardekani BA, Helpern JA. Estimation of tensors and tensor-derived measures in diffusional kurtosis imaging. Magn Reson Med 2011;65:823-836.
58. Habib J, Auer DP, Morgan PS. A quantitative analysis of the benefits of cardiac gating in practical diffusion tensor imaging of the brain. Magn Reson Med 2010;63:1098-1103.
59. Walker L, Chang LC, Koay CG, Sharma N, Cohen L, Verma R, Pierpaoli C. Effects of physiological noise in population analysis of diffusion tensor MRI data. Neuroimage 2011;54:1168-1177.
60. Szczepankiewicz F, Latt J, Wirestam R, Leemans A, Sundgren P, van Westen D, Stahlberg F, Nilsson M. Variability in diffusion kurtosis imaging: impact on study design, statistical power and interpretation. Neuroimage 2013;76:145-154.
61. Hogg RV. Statistical robustness: one view of its use in applications today. Am Stat 1979;33:108-115.