Comparison of modelled diffusion-derived electrical conductivities found using magnetic resonance imaging
IntroductionMagnetic 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. Howeve...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2025-01-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Radiology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fradi.2025.1492479/full |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832591721010036736 |
|---|---|
| author | Sasha Hakhu Leland S. Hu Scott Beeman Rosalind J. Sadleir |
| author_facet | Sasha Hakhu Leland S. Hu Scott Beeman Rosalind J. Sadleir |
| author_sort | Sasha Hakhu |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | IntroductionMagnetic 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsSignificant 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 conclusionOur 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. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-a164774bdfe04159b49b9ea579219c6f |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2673-8740 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-01-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Radiology |
| spelling | doaj-art-a164774bdfe04159b49b9ea579219c6f2025-01-22T07:11:04ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Radiology2673-87402025-01-01510.3389/fradi.2025.14924791492479Comparison of modelled diffusion-derived electrical conductivities found using magnetic resonance imagingSasha Hakhu0Leland S. Hu1Scott Beeman2Rosalind J. Sadleir3School of Biological and Health Systems Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United StatesDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, United StatesSchool of Biological and Health Systems Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United StatesSchool of Biological and Health Systems Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United StatesIntroductionMagnetic 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsSignificant 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 conclusionOur 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.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fradi.2025.1492479/fullelectrical conductivitydiffusionmagnetic resonance imagingmicrostructure imagingelectrodeless methods |
| spellingShingle | Sasha Hakhu Leland S. Hu Scott Beeman Rosalind J. Sadleir Comparison of modelled diffusion-derived electrical conductivities found using magnetic resonance imaging Frontiers in Radiology electrical conductivity diffusion magnetic resonance imaging microstructure imaging electrodeless methods |
| title | Comparison of modelled diffusion-derived electrical conductivities found using magnetic resonance imaging |
| title_full | Comparison of modelled diffusion-derived electrical conductivities found using magnetic resonance imaging |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of modelled diffusion-derived electrical conductivities found using magnetic resonance imaging |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of modelled diffusion-derived electrical conductivities found using magnetic resonance imaging |
| title_short | Comparison of modelled diffusion-derived electrical conductivities found using magnetic resonance imaging |
| title_sort | comparison of modelled diffusion derived electrical conductivities found using magnetic resonance imaging |
| topic | electrical conductivity diffusion magnetic resonance imaging microstructure imaging electrodeless methods |
| url | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fradi.2025.1492479/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT sashahakhu comparisonofmodelleddiffusionderivedelectricalconductivitiesfoundusingmagneticresonanceimaging AT lelandshu comparisonofmodelleddiffusionderivedelectricalconductivitiesfoundusingmagneticresonanceimaging AT scottbeeman comparisonofmodelleddiffusionderivedelectricalconductivitiesfoundusingmagneticresonanceimaging AT rosalindjsadleir comparisonofmodelleddiffusionderivedelectricalconductivitiesfoundusingmagneticresonanceimaging |