Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Automated Mapping the Pathways of Cranial Nerve II, III, V, and VII/VIII: A Multi-Parametric Multi-Stage Diffusion Tractography Atlas

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A single diffusion tractography atlas can automatically map eight cranial-nerve bundles spanning five nerve pairs, matching expert manual tracing across multiple imaging sites.

desk verdict A genuinely useful multi-pair cranial nerve atlas, but Section VIII says all data were simulated while the whole paper reports real HCP, MDM, and patient experiments; that contradiction must be resolved before the wDice numbers mean anything. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23245 v1 pith:J5ZTUGWA submitted 2025-07-31 cs.CV

Lei Xie , Jiahao Huang , Jiawei Zhang , Jianzhong He , Yiang Pan , Guoqiang Xie , Mengjun Li , Qingrun Zeng
show 2 more authors
Mingchu Li Yuanjing Feng
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords cranialnervesdiffusionMRItractographymulti-stagefiberclusteringmulti-parametricUKFatlasskullbasesurgeryopticnerve
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a single diffusion tractography atlas can automatically map eight fiber bundles belonging to five pairs of cranial nerves—optic (CN II), oculomotor (CN III), trigeminal (CN V), and facial-vestibulocochlear (CN VII/VIII)—in a new person's brain without expert placement of regions of interest. The atlas is built from roughly one million streamlines generated from 50 HCP subjects using per-nerve tractography parameters, followed by a two-stage clustering cascade that reduces anatomically implausible fibers. On 60 held-out HCP subjects and 20 multi-shell MDM subjects, automated identification reached mean weighted Dice scores of 0.7448 and 0.7827 against expert manual tracing, above the 0.72 threshold commonly used for fiber-overlap agreement. It also identified nerves around tumors in two pituitary adenoma patients and one craniopharyngioma patient. If correct, this would replace a two-hour manual tracing workflow with an automated pipeline of under twenty minutes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the multi-parametric, multi-stage diffusion tractography atlas: a set of 74 expert-labeled fiber clusters in a common space that collectively define eight cranial-nerve bundles. It is built with two-tensor UKF tractography using parameter sets tuned per nerve pair (seeding/stopping FA, Qm, Ql), unbiased groupwise registration of approximately one million streamlines, initial spectral clustering at K=6,000 with two iterations at standard deviation 2.0, ROI screening, and a second enhanced clustering at K=200 with standard deviation 1.0. In a new subject, the same tracking and registration steps are run, streamlines are assigned to the nearest atlas clusters with the same outlier criterion, and the labeled clusters output the final CN pathways.

What would settle it

Run the atlas on a cohort where the true nerve locations are known independently—from intraoperative photographs, cadaveric dissection, or ultra-high-resolution 7T/5T diffusion images—and compare the eight automatically mapped bundles against those locations. If the mean overlap with that independent gold standard falls below the 0.72 threshold, or if the automated CN III bundles systematically miss or falsely cross the brainstem decussation that the authors acknowledge current tractography cannot resolve, the claim that the atlas achieves high spatial correspondence would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery the authors are trying to establish is that a reusable, multi-nerve diffusion tractography atlas can reproduce expert manual identification of cranial nerve pathways across acquisition sites. They generate the atlas by merging and registering streamlines from 50 HCP subjects, running an initial spectral clustering into 6,000 clusters, retaining 106 candidate clusters, then refining them by enhanced clustering into 200 clusters and expert-selecting 74 that represent the eight CN bundles (CN II decussating and nondecussating, CN III left/right, CN V left/right, CN VII/VIII left/right). A new subject's streamlines are registered into the atlas space and assigned to the nearest atlas clusters, producing automated bundles without any manual ROI placement. The authors report that these automated bundles agree with expert manual ROI/ROA tracts at mean wDice 0.7448 (HCP) and 0.7827 (MDM), and that the atlas identifies nerves in patients where manual selection failed, which they take as evidence of robustness.

Load-bearing premise

The whole evaluation rests on treating expert manual ROI/ROA tracing as an independent, correct ground truth for where the cranial nerves run, even though the same expert anatomical judgment and protocol also selected and labeled the atlas clusters.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A clinical user can obtain CN II, III, V, and VII/VIII pathways in under 20 minutes instead of the more than 2 hours typical of manual ROI-based tractography.
  • The same atlas transfers to data acquired at different sites and resolutions, including 1.25 mm HCP, 1.5 mm multi-shell, and lower-resolution clinical tumor scans.
  • In subjects where manual ROI identification failed entirely (e.g., 0/6 left CN III on HCP), the atlas still identified most of those tracts, suggesting it can recover pathways a manual protocol misses.
  • For skull base tumors, the atlas can show the spatial relation between a compressed nerve and the lesion, as demonstrated around the optic nerve in pituitary adenoma and craniopharyngioma patients.
  • The overlap scores are comparable to or above those of single-pair CN atlases, so mapping five pairs at once does not cost per-nerve accuracy.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: because the atlas clusters and the manual ground truth were both defined by expert raters using the same CN anatomical judgment, the reported wDice may measure inter-method agreement more than independent anatomical accuracy; the real test would compare against intraoperative or ultra-high-resolution ground truth.
  • Editorial inference: the per-nerve parameter tuning that makes the atlas work suggests that extending it to the remaining seven CN pairs will require additional custom tracking protocols and possibly finer clusters near the brainstem, where current dMRI cannot resolve decussating fibers.
  • Editorial inference: the authors' own comparison with volumetric segmentation shows the two approaches fail differently—atlas streamlines elongate anatomically while voxel segmentation produces fewer extracranial false positives—so a combined pipeline could plausibly beat either alone.
  • Editorial inference: the atlas's success on manual-failure cases is promising but not yet proof of superiority; those recovered tracts need independent verification before being used in surgery.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a comprehensive diffusion tractography atlas for automatically mapping multiple cranial nerve pairs (CN II, CN III, CN V, and CN VII/VIII) from diffusion MRI. The atlas is built from 50 HCP subjects using pair-specific UKF tractography parameters and a two-stage fiber clustering pipeline, then applied to new subjects by registering their tractography into atlas space and assigning streamlines to atlas clusters. Validation is reported on 60 HCP subjects, 20 MDM subjects, two pituitary adenoma patients, and one craniopharyngioma patient, with mean wDice values of 0.7448 (HCP) and 0.7827 (MDM) against expert manual ROI/ROA-based identification. The authors claim this is the first comprehensive multi-pair CN tractography atlas and that the automated method achieves high spatial correspondence with expert manual annotations.

Significance. If the results are valid, the atlas would be a useful contribution: it addresses a real clinical need for automated, multi-pair CN mapping, and the authors state that code and atlas data are publicly available, which supports reproducibility and community use. The multi-stage clustering strategy and pair-specific tractography parameters are reasonable technical ideas. However, the manuscript's central empirical claim is currently undermined by a direct internal contradiction about whether the data were real or simulated, and the validation design relies on the same expert priors used to label the atlas. Resolving these issues is essential before the quantitative results can be interpreted as evidence of generalizable performance.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section VIII (Data and Code Availability), vs. Section III-A, Section IV-A] Section VIII states 'All data used in this study were simulated and did not require an ethical statement.' This directly contradicts Section III-A, which specifies real acquisition parameters for 110 HCP cases, 20 MDM traveling subjects, two PA patients, and one CP patient, and Section IV, which describes manual ROI/ROA ground-truth selection on those subjects. The reported wDice values, identification rates, and patient figures (Figs. 3-5) are meaningless if the underlying data were simulated, and if the sentence is an error, the manuscript cannot be assessed until it is corrected with an appropriate ethics/data statement. This internal inconsistency is the first gate the central claim must pass.
  2. [Section III-D2 and Section IV-A] The atlas clusters were labeled by expert manual annotation using the authors' own anatomical criteria (Section III-D2), and the validation ground truth is expert manual ROI/ROA selection following the same group's protocol from Ref. [8] (Section IV-A). Therefore, the wDice values measure agreement between the automated atlas and the same expert priors that defined the atlas, not agreement with an independent ground truth. This weakens the claim of 'ideal colocalisation' and the implication that the method can replace expert judgment. The authors should provide an independent validation, such as a second rater from a different institution, manual-manual variability, or comparison with an independent anatomical standard.
  3. [Section III-D2 (Multi-stage Fiber Clustering)] The clustering hyperparameters (K=6000, then K=300, standard deviations 2.0 and 1.0, two iterations) are selected 'by considering' qualitative false-positive screening on the atlas-building data, and the text reports no quantitative selection criterion or sensitivity analysis. Since these choices directly determine which streamlines are retained as CN clusters, the generalizability claim for new subjects and new acquisition sites depends on these choices not being overfit to the 50 HCP training subjects. A sensitivity analysis or a validation of these parameter choices on held-out subjects should be reported.
  4. [Section V-B and Table II] The paper uses the threshold 'wDice ≥ 0.72' from Cousineau et al. [34] as evidence of high spatial overlap. However, Ref. [34] concerns test-retest reproducibility of healthy white matter fascicles, not agreement between automated CN mapping and expert manual identification. The threshold is not directly applicable to the authors' validation setting, and without a manual-manual wDice baseline for the same CNs on the same subjects, the reported values cannot be interpreted as 'high spatial correspondence.' The authors should either report manual-manual variability or justify the threshold in the CN context.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II-B] There is a typo in the Related Work section: 'owever' should be 'However.'
  2. [Section VI (Discussion)] The text refers to 'Section III-E' for tractography parameters, but the parameters are actually given in Section III-C. Please correct the cross-reference.
  3. [Section III-C] The text states that approximately 50,000 fibers result for each CN pair and then says merging the five pairs gives approximately 200,000 fibers. Five times 50,000 is 250,000; if the merged count is correct, the per-pair estimate or the number of pairs should be clarified.
  4. [Abstract and throughout] The paper states '5 pairs of CNs' but enumerates CN II, CN III, CN V, and CN VII/VIII, with VII/VIII described as a combined pair. The counting should be made explicit (e.g., whether CN VII and CN VIII are counted separately) to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the atlas is built on held-out clustering and validated on disjoint subjects, so the wDice scores are measurements rather than identities; however, Section VIII's 'all data simulated' statement is a critical internal contradiction that must be resolved independently of circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is empirical, not definitional. A multi-parametric UKF tractography atlas is generated from 50 HCP subjects by clustering roughly 1,000,000 streamlines; the resulting clusters are labeled by expert rater manual annotation (Section III-D2). Automated mapping on disjoint subjects (60 HCP, 20 MDM, two PA, one CP) is then compared with manual ROI/ROA selection made per test subject following Ref [8] (Section IV-A). No equation or algorithmic step makes the automated output equal to the manual ground truth by construction; the atlas could fail on a new subject, and the reported wDice values (0.7448 HCP, 0.7827 MDM, Table II) are empirical agreement scores. The shared-expert-prior concern (atlas labels and validation both use expert anatomical judgment from the same group) is a legitimate validity caveat, but it does not reduce the result to its inputs because the validation annotations are drawn independently on each test subject. The self-citations in the method (UKF parameters from Refs [7], [18], [20], [21]; manual protocol from Ref [8]) are externally usable procedures, not fitted parameters that predetermine the outcome, so they do not constitute load-bearing circularity. Separately, Section VIII states "All data used in this study were simulated and did not require an ethical statement," which directly contradicts the real HCP, MDM, Xuanwu PA, and CP data described in Section III-A and used in Sections IV-V. This is a serious data-integrity inconsistency that must be resolved before the experimental claims can be evaluated; it is not a circular derivation, so it does not change the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method rests on a set of manually chosen tractography and clustering parameters (UKF thresholds, K, standard deviations) and on expert anatomical annotations, both for labeling the atlas and for defining ground truth. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • UKF seedingFA / stoppingFA / Qm / Ql for CN II = 0.02 / 0.01 / 0.001 / 50
    Chosen from optimal parameters in prior work (refs 7, 17-21); per-nerve values needed to reconstruct CN II streamlines.
  • UKF seedingFA / stoppingFA / Qm / Ql for CN III = 0.01 / 0.01 / 0.001 / 150
    Chosen from optimal parameters in prior work (refs 18, 21); applied to oculomotor nerve tractography.
  • UKF seedingFA / stoppingFA / Qm / Ql for CN V = 0.06 / 0.05 / 0.001 / 300
    Chosen from optimal parameters in prior work (refs 19, 21); applied to trigeminal nerve tractography.
  • UKF seedingFA / stoppingFA / Qm / Ql for CN VII/VIII = 0.02 / 0.05 / 0.001 / 50
    Chosen from optimal parameters in prior work (refs 20, 21); applied to facial-vestibulocochlear complex tractography.
  • Initial spectral clustering K = 6000
    Selected by testing K=3000, 4000, 5000, and 6000; authors chose 6000 to balance false-positive fibers and computational cost (Section III-D2).
  • Enhanced clustering K = 200 (text) vs 300 (Fig. 2 caption)
    Text says K=100, 200, 300 were tested and K=200 chosen to minimize false positives; Fig. 2(c3) caption states K=300, an internal inconsistency.
  • Cluster standard deviation and iterations = Std=2.0, iterations=2 (initial); Std=1.0 (enhanced)
    Chosen to remove outlier fibers; no independent justification is provided.
  • Fibers sampled per subject for registration and clustering = 20000
    Random sampling used to keep computational load manageable while claiming representativeness.
  • Minimum fiber length = 20 mm
    Streamlines shorter than 20 mm are removed before registration and clustering.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Spectral clustering and groupwise tractography registration produce anatomically meaningful clusters
    Relies on whitematteranalysis and O'Donnell-Westin methods (refs 24, 33).
  • domain assumption Two-tensor UKF tractography reconstructs cisternal CN segments with anatomical validity
    Invoked in Section III-C; based on prior comparisons (refs 7, 21, 32).
  • domain assumption Expert manual ROI/ROA selection on test subjects is a valid ground truth for CN location
    Section IV-A treats manual selection as ground truth; the criteria come from the same group's supplementary material (ref 8).
  • domain assumption The expert anatomical definitions used to label atlas clusters are correct
    Section III-D: 'all 200 candidate clusters ... were defined ... by expert rater manual annotation'.
  • ad hoc to paper Optimal UKF parameters from prior single-pair studies transfer to the multi-pair atlas and to new acquisition sites
    Section III-C sets parameters by citing refs 7, 18, 20, 21; no recalibration procedure is given.
  • ad hoc to paper Clustering parameters (K, std, iterations) chosen by inspecting false positives on the atlas data remain valid for new subjects
    Section III-D2 describes testing K values on the atlas data itself and selecting by qualitative false-positive content.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Automated Mapping the Pathways of Cranial Nerve II, III, V, and VII/VIII: A Multi-Parametric Multi-Stage Diffusion Tractography Atlas." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J5ZTUGWA

@misc{pith2026250723245,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Automated Mapping the Pathways of Cranial Nerve II, III, V, and VII/VIII: A Multi-Parametric Multi-Stage Diffusion Tractography Atlas},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J5ZTUGWA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23245}
}
read the original abstract

Cranial nerves (CNs) play a crucial role in various essential functions of the human brain, and mapping their pathways from diffusion MRI (dMRI) provides valuable preoperative insights into the spatial relationships between individual CNs and key tissues. However, mapping a comprehensive and detailed CN atlas is challenging because of the unique anatomical structures of each CN pair and the complexity of the skull base environment.In this work, we present what we believe to be the first study to develop a comprehensive diffusion tractography atlas for automated mapping of CN pathways in the human brain. The CN atlas is generated by fiber clustering by using the streamlines generated by multi-parametric fiber tractography for each pair of CNs. Instead of disposable clustering, we explore a new strategy of multi-stage fiber clustering for multiple analysis of approximately 1,000,000 streamlines generated from the 50 subjects from the Human Connectome Project (HCP). Quantitative and visual experiments demonstrate that our CN atlas achieves high spatial correspondence with expert manual annotations on multiple acquisition sites, including the HCP dataset, the Multi-shell Diffusion MRI (MDM) dataset and two clinical cases of pituitary adenoma patients. The proposed CN atlas can automatically identify 8 fiber bundles associated with 5 pairs of CNs, including the optic nerve CN II, oculomotor nerve CN III, trigeminal nerve CN V and facial-vestibulocochlear nerve CN VII/VIII, and its robustness is demonstrated experimentally. This work contributes to the field of diffusion imaging by facilitating more efficient and automated mapping the pathways of multiple pairs of CNs, thereby enhancing the analysis and understanding of complex brain structures through visualization of their spatial relationships with nearby anatomy.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [8]

    Cntseg: A multimodal deep-learning-based network for cranial nerves tract segmentation,

    L. Xie, J. Huang, J. Yu, Q. Zeng, Q. Hu, Z. Chen, G. Xie, and Y . Feng, “Cntseg: A multimodal deep-learning-based network for cranial nerves tract segmentation,” Medical Image Analysis , vol. 86, p. 102766, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [34]

    A test-retest study on parkinson’s ppmi dataset yields statistically significant white matter fascicles,

    M. Cousineau, P.-M. Jodoin, E. Garyfallidis, M.-A. C ˆot´e, F. C. Morency, V . Rozanski, M. Grand’Maison, B. J. Bedell, and M. Descoteaux, “A test-retest study on parkinson’s ppmi dataset yields statistically significant white matter fascicles,” NeuroImage: Clinical, vol. 16, pp. 222–233, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [1]

    Comparison of probabilistic and deterministic fiber tracking of cranial nerves,

    A. Zolal, S. B. Sobottka, D. Podlesek, J. Linn, B. Rieger, T. A. Juratli, G. Schackert, and H. H. Kitzler, “Comparison of probabilistic and deterministic fiber tracking of cranial nerves,” Journal of Neurosurgery, vol. 127, no. 3, pp. 613–621, 2016

    work page 2016

  4. [2]

    Visualization of cranial nerves using high-definition fiber tractography,

    M. Yoshino, K. Abhinav, F.-C. Yeh, S. Panesar, D. Fernandes, S. Pathak, P. A. Gardner, and J. C. Fernandez-Miranda, “Visualization of cranial nerves using high-definition fiber tractography,” Neurosurgery, vol. 79, no. 1, pp. 146–165, 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [3]

    Intraoperative visualization of cranial nerve schwannomas using second-window indocyanine green: A case series,

    N. Muhammad, S. Ajmera, and J. Y . Lee, “Intraoperative visualization of cranial nerve schwannomas using second-window indocyanine green: A case series,” Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery, vol. 240, p. 108241, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [4]

    Tractography-based automated identification of retinogeniculate visual pathway with novel microstructure-informed supervised contrastive learning,

    S. Li, W. Zhang, S. Yao, J. He, J. Gao, T. Xue, G. Xie, Y . Chen, E. F. Torio, Y . Fenget al., “Tractography-based automated identification of retinogeniculate visual pathway with novel microstructure-informed supervised contrastive learning,” Human Brain Mapping, vol. 45, no. 17, p. e70071, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [5]

    Comparison of diffusion-weighted mri recon- struction methods for visualization of cranial nerves in posterior fossa surgery,

    B. Behan, D. Q. Chen, F. Sammartino, D. D. DeSouza, E. Wharton- Shukster, and M. Hodaie, “Comparison of diffusion-weighted mri recon- struction methods for visualization of cranial nerves in posterior fossa surgery,” Frontiers in Neuroscience, vol. 11, p. 554, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [6]

    Dual-uncertainty guided multimodal mri- based visual pathway extraction,

    A. Diakite, C. Li, Y . B. M. Osman, Z. Chen, Y . Pan, J. Zhang, T. Tan, H. Zheng, and S. Wang, “Dual-uncertainty guided multimodal mri- based visual pathway extraction,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 47 references
  1. [7]

    Comparison of multiple tractography methods for reconstruction of the retinogeniculate visual pathway using diffusion mri,

    J. He, F. Zhang, G. Xie, S. Yao, Y . Feng, D. C. Bastos, Y . Rathi, N. Makris, R. Kikinis, A. J. Golby et al. , “Comparison of multiple tractography methods for reconstruction of the retinogeniculate visual pathway using diffusion mri,” Human Brain Mapping , vol. 42, no. 12, p...

    2021

  2. [9]

    Overcoming challenges of cranial nerve tractography: a targeted review,

    T. Jacquesson, C. Frindel, G. Kocevar, M. Berhouma, E. Jouanneau, A. Atty ´e, and F. Cotton, “Overcoming challenges of cranial nerve tractography: a targeted review,” Neurosurgery, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 313– 325, 2019

    2019

  3. [10]

    Full tractography for detecting the position of cranial nerves in preoperative planning for skull base surgery,

    T. Jacquesson, F.-C. Yeh, S. Panesar, J. Barrios, A. Atty ´e, C. Frindel, F. Cotton, P. Gardner, E. Jouanneau, and J. C. Fernandez-Miranda, “Full tractography for detecting the position of cranial nerves in preoperative planning for skull base surgery,” Journal of Neurosurgery...

    2019

  4. [11]

    Preoperative diffusion tensor imaging: Fiber-trajectory- distribution-based tractography to identify facial nerve in vestibular schwannoma,

    Q. Hu, M. Li, M. Li, Q. Zeng, J. Yu, X. Wang, Z. Xia, L. Xie, J. Zhang, J. Huang et al., “Preoperative diffusion tensor imaging: Fiber-trajectory- distribution-based tractography to identify facial nerve in vestibular schwannoma,” Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , vol. 92, no. ...

    2024

  5. [12]

    Anatomy-guided fiber trajectory distribution estimation for cranial nerves tractography,

    L. Xie, Q. Zeng, H. Zhou, G. Xie, M. Li, J. Huang, J. Cui, H. Chen, and Y . Feng, “Anatomy-guided fiber trajectory distribution estimation for cranial nerves tractography,” in 2024 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–5

    2024

  6. [13]

    Validation of in vitro probabilistic tractography,

    T. B. Dyrby, L. V . Søgaard, G. J. Parker, D. C. Alexander, N. M. Lind, W. F. Baar´e, A. Hay-Schmidt, N. Eriksen, B. Pakkenberg, O. B. Paulson et al. , “Validation of in vitro probabilistic tractography,” Neuroimage, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 1267–1277, 2007

    2007

  7. [14]

    Filtered multitensor tractography,

    J. G. Malcolm, M. E. Shenton, and Y . Rathi, “Filtered multitensor tractography,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 1664–1675, 2010

    2010

  8. [15]

    Parallel transport tractography,

    D. B. Aydogan and Y . Shi, “Parallel transport tractography,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 635–647, 2020

    2020

  9. [16]

    Rgvpseg: multimodal information fusion network for retinogeniculate visual pathway segmen- tation,

    Q. Zeng, L. Yang, Y . Li, L. Xie, and Y . Feng, “Rgvpseg: multimodal information fusion network for retinogeniculate visual pathway segmen- tation,” Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing , pp. 1–15, 2025

    2025

  10. [17]

    Automated identification of the retinogeniculate visual pathway using a high-dimensional tractography atlas,

    Q. Zeng, J. Huang, J. He, S. Chen, L. Xie, Z. Chen, W. Guo, S. Yao, M. Li, M. Li et al. , “Automated identification of the retinogeniculate visual pathway using a high-dimensional tractography atlas,” IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems , vol. 16, no. 3, p...

    2023

  11. [18]

    Automatic oculomotor nerve identification based on data- driven fiber clustering,

    J. Huang, M. Li, Q. Zeng, L. Xie, J. He, G. Chen, J. Liang, M. Li, and Y . Feng, “Automatic oculomotor nerve identification based on data- driven fiber clustering,” Human Brain Mapping, vol. 43, no. 7, pp. 2164– 2180, 2022

    2022

  12. [19]

    Cre- ation of a novel trigeminal tractography atlas for automated trigeminal nerve identification,

    F. Zhang, G. Xie, L. Leung, M. Mooney, L. Epprecht, I. Norton, Y . Rathi, R. Kikinis, O. Al-Mefty, N. Makris, A. Golby, and L. O’Donnell, “Cre- ation of a novel trigeminal tractography atlas for automated trigeminal nerve identification,” Neuroimage, vol. 220, p. 117063, 06 2020

    2020

  13. [20]

    Automated facial–vestibulocochlear nerve com- plex identification based on data-driven tractography clustering,

    Q. Zeng, M. Li, S. Yuan, J. He, J. Wang, Z. Chen, C. Zhao, G. Chen, J. Liang, M. Li et al., “Automated facial–vestibulocochlear nerve com- plex identification based on data-driven tractography clustering,” NMR in Biomedicine, vol. 34, no. 12, p. e4607, 2021. AUTHOR et al.: PRE...

    2021

  14. [21]

    Anatomical assessment of trigeminal nerve tractography using diffusion mri: A comparison of acquisition b-values and single- and multi-fiber tracking strategies,

    G. Xie, F. Zhang, L. Leung, M. A. Mooney, and L. J. O’Donnell, “Anatomical assessment of trigeminal nerve tractography using diffusion mri: A comparison of acquisition b-values and single- and multi-fiber tracking strategies,” NeuroImage: Clinical, vol. 25, p. 102160, 2020

    2020

  15. [22]

    Mri- based medial axis extraction and boundary segmentation of cranial nerves through discrete deformable 3d contour and surface models,

    S. Sultana, J. E. Blatt, B. Gilles, T. Rashid, and M. A. Audette, “Mri- based medial axis extraction and boundary segmentation of cranial nerves through discrete deformable 3d contour and surface models,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 1711–1721, 2017

    2017

  16. [23]

    Probabilistic tractography to predict the position of cranial nerves displaced by skull base tumors: value for surgical strategy through a case series of 62 patients,

    T. Jacquesson, F. Cotton, A. Atty ´e, S. Zaouche, S. Tringali, J. Bosc, P. Robinson, E. Jouanneau, and C. Frindel, “Probabilistic tractography to predict the position of cranial nerves displaced by skull base tumors: value for surgical strategy through a case series of 62 pati...

    2019

  17. [24]

    Automatic tractography segmentation using a high-dimensional white matter atlas,

    L. J. O’Donnell and C.-F. Westin, “Automatic tractography segmentation using a high-dimensional white matter atlas,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 26, no. 11, pp. 1562–1575, 2007

    2007

  18. [25]

    Fiber clustering versus the parcellation-based connectome,

    L. J. O’Donnell, A. J. Golby, and C.-F. Westin, “Fiber clustering versus the parcellation-based connectome,” Neuroimage, vol. 80, pp. 283–289, 2013

    2013

  19. [26]

    Advances in diffusion mri acquisition and processing in the human connectome project,

    S. N. Sotiropoulos, S. Jbabdi, J. Xu, J. L. Andersson, S. Moeller, E. J. Auerbach, M. F. Glasser, M. Hernandez, G. Sapiro, M. Jenkinson et al., “Advances in diffusion mri acquisition and processing in the human connectome project,” Neuroimage, vol. 80, pp. 125–143, 2013

    2013

  20. [27]

    The wu-minn human connec- tome project: an overview,

    D. C. Van Essen, S. M. Smith, D. M. Barch, T. E. Behrens, E. Yacoub, K. Ugurbil, W.-M. H. Consortium et al., “The wu-minn human connec- tome project: an overview,” Neuroimage, vol. 80, pp. 62–79, 2013

    2013

  21. [28]

    Multicenter dataset of multi-shell diffusion mri in healthy traveling adults with identical settings,

    Q. Tong, H. He, T. Gong, C. Li, P. Liang, T. Qian, Y . Sun, Q. Ding, K. Li, and J. Zhong, “Multicenter dataset of multi-shell diffusion mri in healthy traveling adults with identical settings,” Scientific Data, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 157, 2020

    2020

  22. [29]

    Jenkinson, C

    M. Jenkinson, C. F. Beckmann, T. E. Behrens, M. W. Woolrich, and S. M. Smith, “Fsl,” Neuroimage, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 782–790, 2012

    2012

  23. [30]

    Mrtrix: diffusion trac- tography in crossing fiber regions,

    J.-D. Tournier, F. Calamante, and A. Connelly, “Mrtrix: diffusion trac- tography in crossing fiber regions,” International journal of imaging systems and technology , vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 53–66, 2012

    2012

  24. [31]

    Symmetric atlasing and model based segmentation: an applica- tion to the hippocampus in older adults,

    G. Grabner, A. L. Janke, M. M. Budge, D. Smith, J. Pruessner, and D. L. Collins, “Symmetric atlasing and model based segmentation: an applica- tion to the hippocampus in older adults,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2006: 9th International...

    2006

  25. [32]

    Facial nerve tractography using diffusion mri: A comparison of acquisition b-values and single-and multifiber tracking strategies,

    L. Epprecht, L. Zekelman, K. L. Reinshagen, G. Xie, I. Norton, R. Kiki- nis, N. Makris, M. Piccirelli, A. Huber, D. J. Lee et al., “Facial nerve tractography using diffusion mri: A comparison of acquisition b-values and single-and multifiber tracking strategies,” Otology & Neu...

    2024

  26. [33]

    Unbiased groupwise registration of white matter tractography,

    L. J. O’Donnell, W. M. Wells, A. J. Golby, and C.-F. Westin, “Unbiased groupwise registration of white matter tractography,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2012: 15th International Conference, Nice, France, October 1-5, 2012, Proceedings, ...

    2012

  27. [35]

    Quantitative mapping of the brain’s structural connectivity using diffusion mri tractography: A review,

    F. Zhang, A. Daducci, Y . He, S. Schiavi, C. Seguin, R. E. Smith, C.-H. Yeh, T. Zhao, and L. J. O’Donnell, “Quantitative mapping of the brain’s structural connectivity using diffusion mri tractography: A review,” Neuroimage, vol. 249, p. 118870, 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    Test–retest reproducibility of white matter parcellation using diffusion mri tractography fiber clustering,

    F. Zhang, Y . Wu, I. Norton, Y . Rathi, A. J. Golby, and L. J. O’Donnell, “Test–retest reproducibility of white matter parcellation using diffusion mri tractography fiber clustering,” Human brain mapping , vol. 40, no. 10, pp. 3041–3057, 2019

    2019

  29. [37]

    Unified framework for oculomotor nerve reconstruction: Tractography- based anatomical assessment,

    J. Huang, Q. Zeng, Y . Wu, J. Zhang, M. Li, L. Xie, M. Li, and Y . Feng, “Unified framework for oculomotor nerve reconstruction: Tractography- based anatomical assessment,” Journal of Neuroimaging, vol. 35, no. 3, p. e70052, 2025

    2025

  30. [38]

    Fiber orientation distribution for detecting skull base tumor histopathol- ogy: technical note and retrospective 81-case series,

    T. Jacquesson, A. Comte, M. Aubert, M. Des Ligneris, E. Desmazure, L. Goichot, E. Jouanneau, N. Kurland, S. Tringali, C. Frindel et al. , “Fiber orientation distribution for detecting skull base tumor histopathol- ogy: technical note and retrospective 81-case series,” Journal ...

    2025

  31. [39]

    Visualization of cranial nerves using high-definition fiber tractography,

    K. Yang, T. Shrestha, and M. Kolakshyapati, “Visualization of cranial nerves using high-definition fiber tractography,” Neurosurgery, vol. 80, no. 5, pp. E251–E251, 2017

    2017

  32. [40]

    Ffclust: Fast fiber clustering for large tractography datasets for a detailed study of brain connectivity,

    A. V ´azquez, N. L ´opez-L´opez, A. S ´anchez, J. Houenou, C. Poupon, J.-F. Mangin, C. Hern ´andez, and P. Guevara, “Ffclust: Fast fiber clustering for large tractography datasets for a detailed study of brain connectivity,” NeuroImage, vol. 220, p. 117070, 2020

    2020

  33. [41]

    Advancements in skull base surgery: Navigating complex challenges with artificial intelligence,

    G. Upreti, “Advancements in skull base surgery: Navigating complex challenges with artificial intelligence,” Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery , vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 2184–2190, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Trigeminal neuralgia resulting from infarction of the root entry zone of the trigeminal nerve: case report,

    A. J. Golby, A. Norbash, and G. D. Silverberg, “Trigeminal neuralgia resulting from infarction of the root entry zone of the trigeminal nerve: case report,” Neurosurgery, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 620–622, 1998

    1998

  35. [43]

    Trigeminal neuralgia linked to demyelination in multiple sclerosis,

    H. Wood, “Trigeminal neuralgia linked to demyelination in multiple sclerosis,” Nature Reviews. Neurology, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 298–298, 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    Diffusion mri of the facial-vestibulocochlear nerve complex: a prospective clinical validation study,

    J. Shapey, S. B. V os, L. Mancini, B. Sanders, J. S. Thornton, J.-D. Tournier, S. R. Saeed, N. Kitchen, S. Khalil, P. Grover et al., “Diffusion mri of the facial-vestibulocochlear nerve complex: a prospective clinical validation study,” European Radiology, vol. 33, no. 11, pp....

    2023

  37. [45]

    Diff5t: Benchmarking human brain diffusion mri with an extensive 5.0 tesla k-space and spatial dataset,

    S. Wang, S. Yu, J. Cheng, S. Jia, C. Tie, J. Zhu, H. Peng, Y . Dong, J. He, F. Zhang et al., “Diff5t: Benchmarking human brain diffusion mri with an extensive 5.0 tesla k-space and spatial dataset,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.06666, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Fine-scale striatal parcellation using diffusion mri tractography and graph neural networks,

    J. Gao, M. Liu, M. Qian, H. Tang, J. Wang, L. Ma, Y . Li, X. Dai, Z. Wang, F. Lu et al. , “Fine-scale striatal parcellation using diffusion mri tractography and graph neural networks,” Medical Image Analysis , p. 103482, 2025

    2025

  39. [47]

    Tractgraph- former: Anatomically informed hybrid graph cnn-transformer network for interpretable sex and age prediction from diffusion mri tractography,

    Y . Chen, F. Zhang, M. Wang, L. R. Zekelman, S. Cetin-Karayumak, T. Xue, C. Zhang, Y . Song, J. Rushmore, N. Makris et al., “Tractgraph- former: Anatomically informed hybrid graph cnn-transformer network for interpretable sex and age prediction from diffusion mri tractography,...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.