Tractography Reproducibility Challenge with Empirical Data (TraCED): The 2017 ISMRM Diffusion Study Group Challenge
Vishwesh NathiD, Kurt G. SchillingiD, Prasanna ParvathaneniiD, Yuankai HuoiD, Justin A. Blaber, Allison E. HainlineiD, Muhamed BarakovićiD, David RomascanoiD, Jonathan Rafael‐PatiñoiD, Matteo FrigoiD, Gabriel GirardiD, Jean‐Philippe ThiraniD, Alessandro DaducciiD, Matt Rowe, Paulo RodriguesiD, Vesna PrčkovskaiD, Dogu Baran AydoganiD, Wei SuniD, Yonggang ShiiD, William A. Parker, Abdol Aziz Ould IsmailiD, Ragini VermaiD, Ryan P. CabeeniD, Arthur W. TogaiD, Allen T. NewtoniD, , Bennett A. LandmaniD
Abstract
PurposeFiber tracking with diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging has become an essential tool for estimating in vivo brain white matter architecture. Fiber tracking results are sensitive to the choice of processing method and tracking criteria. Phantom studies provide concrete quantitative comparisons of methods relative to absolute ground truths, yet do not capture variabilities because of in vivo physiological factors.\n\nMethodsTo date, a large-scale reproducibility analysis has not been performed for the assessment of the newest generation of tractography algorithms with in vivo data. Reproducibility does not assess the validity of a brain connection however it is still of critical importance because it describes the variability for an algorithm in group studies. The ISMRM 2017 TraCED challenge was created to fulfill the gap. The TraCED dataset consists of a single healthy volunteer scanned on two different scanners of the same manufacturer. The multi-shell acquisition included b-values of 1000, 2000 and 3000 s/mm2 with 20, 45 and 64 diffusion gradient directions per shell, respectively.\n\nResultsNine international groups submitted 46 tractography algorithm entries. The top five submissions had high ICC > 0.88. Reproducibility is high within these top 5 submissions when assessed across sessions or across scanners. However, it can be directly attributed to containment of smaller volume tracts in larger volume tracts. This holds true for the top five submissions where they are contained in a specific order. While most algorithms are contained in an ordering there are some outliers.\n\nConclusionThe different methods clearly result in fundamentally different tract structures at the more conservative specificity choices (i.e., volumetrically smaller tractograms). The data and challenge infrastructure remain available for continued analysis and provide a platform for comparison.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 53
- FWCI
- 1.16
- Field percentile
- top 25%
- Organism
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Tractography-based connectomes are dominated by false-positive connections
Klaus Hermann Maier-Hein, Peter Neher, … Maxime Descoteaux·Nature CommunicationsPeer-reviewed·Nov 1, 2017
- Limits to anatomical accuracy of diffusion tractography using modern approaches
Kurt G. Schilling, Vishwesh Nath, … Bennett A. Landman·NeuroImagePeer-reviewed·Oct 11, 2018
- Evaluating the reliability of human brain white matter tractometry
John Kruper, Jason D. Yeatman, … Ariel Rokem·Aperture NeuroPeer-reviewed·Nov 17, 2021
- Tractometry reproducibility and generalizability across scanners, scanner models, and acquisition protocols
Daiki Taguma, Isao Yokoi, … Hiromasa Takemura·bioRxiv·May 18, 2026
- ReTrace: Topological evaluation of white matter tractography algorithms using Reeb graphs
S. Shailja, Jefferson W. Chen, … Bangalore S Manjunath·Lecture notes in computer sciencePeer-reviewed·Jan 1, 2023
- Fiber tractography bundle segmentation depends on scanner effects, vendor effects, acquisition resolution, diffusion sampling scheme, diffusion sensitization, and bundle segmentation workflow
Kurt G. Schilling, Chantal M. W. Tax, … Bennett A. Landman·NeuroImagePeer-reviewed·Aug 4, 2021