Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Tractography dissection variability: What happens when 42 groups dissect 14 white matter bundles on the same dataset?

  • Kurt G. Schilling*
  • , François Rheault
  • , Laurent Petit
  • , Colin B. Hansen
  • , Vishwesh Nath
  • , Fang Cheng Yeh
  • , Gabriel Girard
  • , Muhamed Barakovic
  • , Jonathan Rafael-Patino
  • , Thomas Yu
  • , Elda Fischi-Gomez
  • , Marco Pizzolato
  • , Mario Ocampo-Pineda
  • , Simona Schiavi
  • , Erick J. Canales-Rodríguez
  • , Alessandro Daducci
  • , Cristina Granziera
  • , Giorgio Innocenti
  • , Jean Philippe Thiran
  • , Laura Mancini
  • Stephen Wastling, Sirio Cocozza, Maria Petracca, Giuseppe Pontillo, Matteo Mancini, Sjoerd B. Vos, Vejay N. Vakharia, John S. Duncan, Helena Melero, Lidia Manzanedo, Emilio Sanz-Morales, Ángel Peña-Melián, Fernando Calamante, Arnaud Attyé, Ryan P. Cabeen, Laura Korobova, Arthur W. Toga, Anupa Ambili Vijayakumari, Drew Parker, Ragini Verma, Ahmed Radwan, Stefan Sunaert, Louise Emsell, Alberto De Luca, Alexander Leemans, Claude J. Bajada, Hamied Haroon, Hojjatollah Azadbakht, Maxime Chamberland, Sila Genc, Chantal M.W. Tax, Ping Hong Yeh, Rujirutana Srikanchana, Colin D. Mcknight, Joseph Yuan Mou Yang, Jian Chen, Claire E. Kelly, Chun Hung Yeh, Jerome Cochereau, Jerome J. Maller, Thomas Welton, Fabien Almairac, Kiran K. Seunarine, Chris A. Clark, Fan Zhang, Nikos Makris, Alexandra Golby, Yogesh Rathi, Lauren J. O'Donnell, Yihao Xia, Dogu Baran Aydogan, Yonggang Shi, Francisco Guerreiro Fernandes, Mathijs Raemaekers, Shaun Warrington, Stijn Michielse, Alonso Ramírez-Manzanares, Luis Concha, Ramón Aranda, Mariano Rivera Meraz, Garikoitz Lerma-Usabiaga, Lucas Roitman, Lucius S. Fekonja, Navona Calarco, Michael Joseph, Hajer Nakua, Aristotle N. Voineskos, Philippe Karan, Gabrielle Grenier, Jon Haitz Legarreta, Nagesh Adluru, Veena A. Nair, Vivek Prabhakaran, Andrew L. Alexander, Koji Kamagata, Yuya Saito, Wataru Uchida, Christina Andica, Masahiro Abe, Roza G. Bayrak, Claudia A.M.Gandini Wheeler-Kingshott, Egidio D'Angelo, Fulvia Palesi, Giovanni Savini, Nicolò Rolandi, Pamela Guevara, Josselin Houenou, Narciso López-López, Jean François Mangin, Cyril Poupon, Claudio Román, Andrea Vázquez, Chiara Maffei, Mavilde Arantes, José Paulo Andrade, Susana Maria Silva, Vince D. Calhoun, Eduardo Caverzasi, Simone Sacco, Michael Lauricella, Franco Pestilli, Daniel Bullock, Yang Zhan, Edith Brignoni-Perez, Catherine Lebel, Jess E. Reynolds, Igor Nestrasil, René Labounek, Christophe Lenglet, Amy Paulson, Stefania Aulicka, Sarah R. Heilbronner, Katja Heuer, Bramsh Qamar Chandio, Javier Guaje, Wei Tang, Eleftherios Garyfallidis, Rajikha Raja, Adam W. Anderson, Bennett A. Landman, Maxime Descoteaux
*Corresponding author for this work
  • Vanderbilt University
  • Université de Sherbrooke
  • Université de Bordeaux
  • University of Pittsburgh
  • CIBM Center for BioMedical Imaging
  • University of Basel
  • Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne
  • Technical University of Denmark
  • University of Verona
  • Karolinska Institutet
  • University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
  • University of Naples Federico II
  • University of Sussex
  • University College London
  • Epilepsy Society
  • Universidad Rey Juan Carlos
  • Complutense University
  • The University of Sydney
  • University of Southern California
  • University of Pennsylvania
  • KU Leuven
  • Utrecht University
  • University of Malta
  • University of Manchester
  • AINOSTICS Limited
  • Cardiff University
  • Walter Reed Army Institute of Research
  • Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne
  • Murdoch Children's Research Institute
  • Chang Gung Memorial Hospital
  • CHU de Poitiers
  • General Electric
  • Singapore Health Services
  • CHU de Nice
  • Brigham and Women’s Hospital
  • Aalto University
  • University of Nottingham
  • Maastricht University
  • Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia Mexico
  • Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
  • Centro de Investigacion Cientifica y de Educacion Superior de Ensenada
  • Stanford University
  • Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin
  • University of Toronto
  • University of Wisconsin-Madison
  • Juntendo University
  • University of Pavia
  • IRCCS Fondazione Istituto Neurologico Casimiro Mondino - Pavia
  • Universidad de Concepción
  • Commissariat à l’énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives
  • Massachusetts General Hospital
  • University of Porto
  • Georgia State University
  • University of California at San Francisco
  • University of Texas at Austin
  • Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology
  • University of Calgary
  • University of Minnesota Twin Cities
  • Masaryk University
  • Université Paris Cité
  • Indiana University Bloomington
  • University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal Article peer-review

139 Scopus citations

Abstract

White matter bundle segmentation using diffusion MRI fiber tractography has become the method of choice to identify white matter fiber pathways in vivo in human brains. However, like other analyses of complex data, there is considerable variability in segmentation protocols and techniques. This can result in different reconstructions of the same intended white matter pathways, which directly affects tractography results, quantification, and interpretation. In this study, we aim to evaluate and quantify the variability that arises from different protocols for bundle segmentation. Through an open call to users of fiber tractography, including anatomists, clinicians, and algorithm developers, 42 independent teams were given processed sets of human whole-brain streamlines and asked to segment 14 white matter fascicles on six subjects. In total, we received 57 different bundle segmentation protocols, which enabled detailed volume-based and streamline-based analyses of agreement and disagreement among protocols for each fiber pathway. Results show that even when given the exact same sets of underlying streamlines, the variability across protocols for bundle segmentation is greater than all other sources of variability in the virtual dissection process, including variability within protocols and variability across subjects. In order to foster the use of tractography bundle dissection in routine clinical settings, and as a fundamental analytical tool, future endeavors must aim to resolve and reduce this heterogeneity. Although external validation is needed to verify the anatomical accuracy of bundle dissections, reducing heterogeneity is a step towards reproducible research and may be achieved through the use of standard nomenclature and definitions of white matter bundles and well-chosen constraints and decisions in the dissection process.

Original languageEnglish
Article number118502
JournalNeuroImage
Volume243
DOIs
StatePublished - 11 2021
Externally publishedYes

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2021

Keywords

  • Bundle segmentation
  • Dissection
  • Fiber pathways
  • Tractography
  • White matter

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Tractography dissection variability: What happens when 42 groups dissect 14 white matter bundles on the same dataset?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this