-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 132
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Brainstorming potential IQMs (image quality metrics) for DWI #1216
Comments
One more:
|
One or more:
|
Just discussed with @yasseraleman:
|
I know it's not an IQM, but how about a DEC map in addition to the FA and ADC images. Would help to diagnose vector files that haven't been written with correct ordering. |
From #1221:
|
@araikes could you open an issue for this? - I'd be happy to add the DEC map to the visual reports |
Proposed by @mattcieslak (#1131 (comment)):
|
Ok.. I have a question and I think here is about a good a place as any to ask. I recognize that rodent data is not super well supported in MRIQC (rats currently are, but not mice). However, perhaps the general discussion on IQMs can help. We collect ex-vivo diffusion data on our mice and we have some older datasets from when I first started work in rodent imaging. It's 3D diffusion acquisitions and one of the challenges which we didn't know we were running into until later was cradle motion. So, in a full dataset (n = 140-216 directions), we have a variable number of directions that end up looking like this: I don't really want to have drop entire acquisitions nor do I really want to spend the tedium of manually (and subjectively) identifying which volumes are the "bad" ones (e.g., how bad is too bad, visually? If the ghosting appears to be only outside the brain, is that ok or is any ghosting bad... those are the things I think about). Is there a plausible quantitative IQM (maybe that z-direction derivative referenced above) that might be useful in identifying volumes with this kind of artifact so that thresholding could be done to remove volumes above/below some study-defined threshold value? Thoughts @oesteban, @arokem, or @mattcieslak? |
Percentage of brain volume. Related: #1216.
I don't think that would actually tell you much in this case. Maybe something like GSR along z (we have it for functional, and only along x and y for humans: https://mriqc.readthedocs.io/en/latest/iqms/bold.html#measures-for-artifacts-and-other) or some adaptation of metrics like the ones proposed in #673. |
Let's close this issue as done and continue with your issue in a separate thread @araikes. |
Sorry to chime in a little late here. I've seen that issues have been open for unchecked items. Maybe some of these are already available, but just in case:
Refs: |
Thanks for chiming in!
This was on my mind, thanks for putting it into writing :)
We have "framewise displacement" copied from BOLD for this. Instead of motion parameters, FD calculates the motion of four corners of a cube along time. That makes the measure more generalizable across subjects, and does not rely on arbitrary implementation decisions such as where the origin of rotations is set.
How's this estimated? (I guess I have to read the reference, right?)
I'd be skeptical that we want to address eddy within MRIQC (which should be quick and dirty).
We have this, but in parts-per-million rather than %. It's called "spikes".
We have this, calculated within a mask of a small portion of the CC. We will expand over other mask with time.
How do you segment tissues? If it is with the data, it really requires a fast method. If it is brought from an atlas, that kind of defeats the purpose.
Happy to add. For now we only have degenerate FA voxels in ppm.
We do this with T1w and T2w, but it is a bit of a rabbit hole because most often you don't have enough metadata to make sure the dataset has no scanner preprocessing (e.g., stuff like SENSE). |
I'd like to tap on the hive mind to figure out some potential summary metrics that may reflect quality aspects of DWI data. The idea is to build from the basis being set in #1131.
At this moment, I have the following thoughts:
/cc @arokem @yasseraleman @edickie
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: