NeuroImageNeurosciencePeer-reviewed journal article
Tractography dissection variability: what happens when 42 groups dissect 14 white matter bundles on the same dataset?
Kurt G. SchillingiD, François RheaultiD, Laurent PetitiD, Colin B. HanseniD, Vishwesh NathiD, Fang-Cheng F. YehiD, Gabriel GirardiD, Muhamed BarakovićiD, Jonathan Rafael‐PatiñoiD, Thomas Von YuiD, Elda Fischi-GómeziD, Marco PizzolatoiD, Mario Ocampo‐PinedaiD, Simona SchiaviiD, Erick Jorge Canales-RodrígueziD, Alessandro DaducciiD, Cristina GranzieraiD, Giorgio M. Innocenti, Jean‐Philippe ThiraniD, Laura ManciniiD, Stephen J. WastlingiD, Sirio CocozzaiD, Maria PetraccaiD, Giuseppe PontilloiD, Matteo ManciniiD, , Roza G. BayrakiD
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.
- Citations
- 182
- FWCI
- 16.49
- Field percentile
- top 1%
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
- 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
- Tractostorm: Rater reproducibility assessment in tractography dissection of the pyramidal tract
François Rheault, Alessandro DE BENEDICTIS, … Maxime Descoteaux·bioRxiv·Apr 30, 2019
- An atlas of white matter anatomy, its variability, and reproducibility based on Constrained Spherical Deconvolution of diffusion MRI
Ahmed Radwan, Stefan G. Sunaert, … Louise Emsell·NeuroImagePeer-reviewed·Feb 26, 2022
- Prevalence of white matter pathways coming into a single diffusion MRI voxel orientation: the bottleneck issue in tractography
Kurt G. Schilling, Chantal M. W. Tax, … Laurent Petit·Human Brain MappingPeer-reviewed·Dec 17, 2021
- TractEM: Fast Protocols for Whole Brain Deterministic Tractography-Based White Matter Atlas
Roza G. Bayrak, Xuan Wang, … Bennett A. Landman·bioRxiv·Jan 10, 2020
- Deterministic versus Probabilistic Tractography: Impact on White Matter Bundle Shape
Yuhan Shuai, Bramsh Q. Chandio, … Paul M. Thompson·International Symposium on Medical Information Processing and Analysis (SIPAIM)Peer-reviewed·Nov 18, 2025