Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 67 references

In Vivo Quantification of Glioma-Induced Solid Stress Using MR Elastography and Deformable Image Registration

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that peritumoral solid stress in glioma can be measured noninvasively in living patients by merging MR elastography with deformation mapping, and that the resulting 'excess solid stress' metric inversely tracks patient sur

desk verdict Serious feasibility study with a promising pipeline, but the survival biomarker rests on an unvalidated reference state and the 'direct quantification' claim overreaches. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.00009 v2 pith:AGOU2AKF submitted 2025-09-15 physics.med-ph physics.bio-ph

Noah Jaitner , Mehrgan Shahryari , Jakob Schattenfroh , Tom Meyer , Hossein S. Aghamiry , Jakob Ludwig , Jakob Jordan , Anastasia Janas
show 8 more authors
Anna Morr Biru Huang Boshra Shams Thomas Picht Gueliz Acker Tobias Schaeffter Jing Guo Ingolf Sack
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.med-phphysics.bio-ph
keywords solidstressgliomaMRelastographydeformableimageregistrationexcessbiomarkersurvivalbrainbiomechanics
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

The paper attempts to establish that mechanical solid stress in glioma can be quantified noninvasively in living patients. It fuses two MRI-based measurements—shear-stiffness maps from multifrequency MR elastography and 3D deformation fields from diffeomorphic image registration—to compute peritumoral strain and a new metric called excess solid stress, defined as the product of the stiffness differential between unaffected and peritumoral brain tissue and the volumetric strain. The authors report that excess volumetric stress is inversely correlated with patient survival in a 10-patient subgroup (R=-0.70, p=0.02), and they claim this is the first direct in vivo quantification of solid stress in glioma patients. If correct, the work provides an imaging-derived mechanical biomarker that could inform prognosis and treatment decisions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the excess solid stress, Σ_vol = Δμ · tr(E), where Δμ is the difference in shear modulus between apparently unaffected brain tissue (μ0) and peritumoral tissue (μ1), and tr(E) is the volumetric strain (the trace of the Green-Lagrange strain tensor). The underlying mechanism: MRE-derived shear modulus maps provide the stiffness contrast, while diffeomorphic registration to a brain atlas provides the deformation field from which strain is computed; multiplying the two yields a quantity that reflects both the mechanical cause (strain) and the tissue consequence (stiffness change) of tumor-induced deformation. The paper argues this combined measure separates patients by sur

What would settle it

In a prospective cohort of at least 30 glioma patients with survival follow-up, compute Σ_vol and test the reported R≈-0.70; if the correlation is not reproduced, the prognostic claim fails. Alternatively, compare noninvasive Σ_vol with direct intraoperative solid-stress measurements in the same peritumoral locations; a systematic disagreement would invalidate the stress interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that combining multifrequency MR elastography (which maps shear-wave speed and hence shear modulus) with diffeomorphic image registration (which maps the deformation field between a patient's brain and a reference atlas) yields a noninvasive measurement of peritumoral solid stress in living glioma patients. The authors introduce a metric called excess solid stress, defined as the product of the shear-modulus difference between unaffected and peritumoral tissue (Δμ) and the volumetric strain in the peritumoral region, and report that this quantity is inversely correlated with patient survival (R=-0.70, p=0.02) in a 10-patient subgroup. They also report the first direct in viv

Load-bearing premise

The result stands on the assumption that apparently unaffected brain tissue in a glioma patient has the same shear modulus that the peritumoral tissue had before the tumor deformed it; the paper's own data show those regions are already softer than healthy controls, so the reference state is likely already degraded.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Excess solid stress may become a quantitative imaging biomarker for survival prognostication in glioma, adding information beyond tumor size or stiffness alone.
  • The finding that peritumoral tissue is compressed by -17±9% and softened relative to healthy brain supports a whole-brain mechanical-degradation model of glioma, extending beyond the visible tumor margin.
  • Because deformation alone did not correlate with outcome, combined strain–stiffness metrics are necessary to extract biomechanical prognostic information.
  • The pipeline works in a mouse GBM model, enabling future longitudinal studies of tumor mechanics and therapy response.
  • If the survival correlation replicates, interventions that reduce peritumoral solid stress (e.g., decompression) could be tested as survival-modifying treatments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The reference-state assumption (unaffected brain ≈ pre-deformation tissue) is likely violated; if true, the survival correlation may reflect global brain degradation rather than local tumor-generated stress, and a longitudinal measurement of the same patient before and after tumor growth would clarify this.
  • The absolute stress values depend on the assumed Poisson's ratio (ν=0.4); if a joint estimation of Lamé parameters were performed, stresses might shift, though the relative ranking of patients could remain.
  • The method could extend to other space-occupying brain lesions or to monitoring treatment response, because it requires only anatomical MRI and MRE, no tumor-specific contrast.
  • A testable prediction not in the paper: if excess stress drives peritumoral softening, then interventions that lower solid stress (e.g., surgical debulking, osmotic agents) should slow tissue degradation and improve survival; this could be tested in a randomized trial.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a noninvasive MRI-based method to quantify glioma-induced solid stress by combining multifrequency MR elastography (MRE) with diffeomorphic deformable image registration. Strain fields are derived from 3D registration to a brain atlas (or to a reference time point in mice), and shear modulus maps are obtained from MRE. The Cauchy stress is computed from a linear isotropic elastic constitutive law with Green-Lagrange strain and an assumed Poisson's ratio of 0.4. Because the pre-deformation reference modulus is unknown in patients, the authors define an 'excess solid stress' as the product of the differential shear modulus between apparently unaffected brain and peritumoral tissue and the volumetric or shear strain. They report whole-brain and peritumoral softening in glioma patients, compression-dominated deformation, and an inverse association between excess volumetric stress and survival in a subgroup of 10 patients. The paper claims to provide the first direct quantification of solid stress in glioma patients and proposes excess solid stress as a prognostic biomarker.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this would be a notable methodological advance: combining strain fields with spatially resolved stiffness to estimate mechanical stress noninvasively could open a new class of imaging biomarkers for glioma and other tumors. The mouse validation of registration-based strain mapping, the use of a publicly available MRE inversion pipeline, and the explicit reporting of summary statistics are strengths. However, the stress estimate rests on several strong assumptions—notably the use of apparently unaffected patient brain tissue as the pre-deformation reference, a linear elastic model with a single assumed Poisson's ratio, and the neglect of time-dependent fluid/solid effects. The survival association is based on 10 patients with no multiple-comparison correction. These issues do not invalidate the empirical observations, but they materially affect the mechanical interpretation and the strength of the prognostic claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Methods, Eq. (12a); Results, Fig. 3B] The definition of excess solid stress relies on Δμ = μ0 − μ1, where μ0 is the shear modulus of 'apparently unaffected brain' assumed to represent the pre-deformation state. The paper's own data show that unaffected brain in glioma patients is significantly softer than healthy control brain (SWS 1.25 ± 0.03 vs 1.37 ± 0.06 m/s, p < 0.001). Therefore μ0 is already degraded relative to a true pre-deformation state, and Δμ reflects a difference between two disease-altered regions rather than a modulus change caused by tumor-induced deformation. Consequently, Σ_vol as defined in Eq. (12a) is not necessarily a mechanical stress; its sign and magnitude depend on an arbitrary internal reference. The survival association in Fig. 4B may then reflect whole-brain degradation rather than tumor-induced solid stress. I request a sensitivity analysis using healthy-control μ0 as the reference, or a quanti
  2. [Methods, Eq. (12a); Results, Fig. 4A] There is a dimensional inconsistency in the definition and use of Δμ. The text states that Δμ = μ0 − μ1 is a shear modulus difference, and Eq. (12a) multiplies it by strain to obtain a stress. However, Fig. 4A and the corresponding results report Δμ in m/s, i.e., a shear wave speed difference, not a shear modulus difference. If Δμ is actually ΔSWS, then Eq. (12a) has units of m/s, not Pa, and the reported 'excess solid stress' values (in Pa) do not follow from the equation as written. This is not a minor notation issue: it affects the quantitative interpretation of the central biomarker. Please clarify whether the plotted Δμ is SWS or shear modulus, and correct the units and equations accordingly.
  3. [Results, Fig. 4B; Methods, Statistical Analysis] The prognostic claim rests on a subgroup of 10 of 21 patients with available survival data. The reported correlation (R = -0.70, p = 0.02) is uncorrected for multiple comparisons: the authors also report testing Σ_shear, which did not reach significance (p = 0.13), and several other correlations in the preceding figures. With n = 10 and no adjustment for WHO grade, age, or treatment, the p-value is fragile. The paper should present a multiple-comparison-corrected analysis, or explicitly state that the association is exploratory. At minimum, a leave-one-out or bootstrap confidence interval for R would help assess stability.
  4. [Abstract; Discussion] The claim of 'first direct quantification of mechanical stress in patients with glioma' is not supported by the evidence presented. No invasive force measurement or independent ground truth is available in patients; the stress values are inferred from a linear elastic constitutive model with an assumed Poisson's ratio and an assumed reference state. The mouse validation demonstrates strain-field consistency between registration methods, but not stress accuracy. I recommend softening the claim to 'indirect estimation' or 'noninvasive inference' and discussing the model dependence explicitly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Results, Fig. 4B caption] The caption gives 'intercept = 19 ± 6 Pa' while the text reports 'intercept: −19 ± 6 Pa'. Please verify the sign and ensure consistency between text, caption, and figure.
  2. [Results, Section 'Peritumoral regions are highly compressed...'] The sentence 'volumetric solid stress σ_vol was 1.2 ± 0.6 kPa with a range of 2.2 ± 0.2 kPa to 0.1 ± 0.2 Pa' mixes kPa and Pa; the lower bound is likely a typo. Also, the range format '2.2 ± 0.2 kPa' is unusual; please report ranges as min–max with units.
  3. [Methods, Eq. (6)] The Green-Lagrange strain expression appears typographically garbled: it should be E = 1/2(∇u + (∇u)^T + (∇u)^T ∇u). Please correct the notation and ensure the tensorial indices are clear.
  4. [Results, Fig. 1C] 'iperitumoral' is a typo for 'peritumoral'.
  5. [Methods, Regional Analysis] The subtraction of group-mean healthy strain from patient strain (Eqs. 8a–8b) assumes that atlas-registration artifacts are identical in patients and controls. This is plausible but should be discussed as a limitation, since anatomical deviations in patients may be systematic rather than random.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: survival correlation is empirical; 'excess solid stress' is an explicitly defined composite, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claim has two parts: (1) quantification of solid stress via MRE + registration, and (2) association of 'excess solid stress' with survival. The stress estimates in Eqs. (9)-(11) follow a standard continuum-mechanics constitutive law using measured shear modulus and strain; no parameter is fitted to survival. The excess-solid-stress metric in Eq. (12a), Σ_vol = Δμ·tr(E), is explicitly introduced as a definition ('we introduce the differential shear modulus... Then, the product... provides a quantitative measure of excess solid stress'), not derived from the outcome data. The survival correlation (R=-0.70, p=0.02, n=10) is computed from measured maps and is therefore an empirical finding, not a construction equivalent to its inputs. The main assumption — that 'apparently unaffected brain tissue' represents the pre-deformation modulus μ0 — is acknowledged as an approximation and is a validity limitation, not a circular reduction; the paper even shows that unaffected brain is softer than healthy controls, which undermines the reference but does not make the derivation self-referential. Self-citations (e.g., ref. 29 for the strain-modulus product idea, refs. 31/53 for prior tools/data) are used for motivation or methodology, but the present Methods independently state the equations and the survival analysis relies on new patient data. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' prior work. Thus the score is low; the only mild concern is the definitional labeling of Δμ·tr(E) as 'excess solid stress' and the reliance on an unverified reference-state assumption, which are correctness risks rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on two unmeasured material assumptions (Poisson's ratio and linear elasticity) and one unverifiable reference state (unaffected brain as pre-deformation). The new composite metric has no independent benchmark. The displacement threshold is derived from controls, but is not fitted to survival.

free parameters (2)
  • Poisson's ratio ν = 0.4
    Assumed for all brain tissue; used in Eq (10) for volumetric solid stress. Not measured in vivo and highly influential: the factor (2ν/(1-2ν)+2/3) changes from about 1.7 to 4.7 between ν=0.35 and ν=0.4.
  • Abnormal displacement threshold = 95th percentile of healthy controls (human: 6.5 mm; mouse: 3.22 mm)
    Defines peritumoral regions; derived from the control distribution, not from the survival outcome.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Isotropic linear elasticity with Cauchy stress σ = λ tr(E) I + 2μ E using Green-Lagrange strain E (Eq 9)
    Foundation of all stress estimates; no finite-strain hyperelastic model or experimental validation is supplied.
  • domain assumption Apparently unaffected brain tissue represents the pre-deformation state with shear modulus μ0 (Methods, Excess solid stress)
    Explicitly stated as an approximation; contradicted by the paper's finding that unaffected regions in patients are softer than healthy controls.
  • domain assumption Poisson's ratio ν=0.4 applies uniformly to all brain regions and patients (Methods, Eq 10)
    Taken from Moran et al.; volumetric stress scales strongly with this choice.
  • domain assumption Atlas registration displacement fields represent tumor-induced deformation after subtracting healthy-control mean strain (Methods, Regional Analysis)
    No pre-tumor baseline exists in patients; anatomical atlas mismatch may contribute to strain.
  • domain assumption Dynamic MRE shear modulus at 20-40 Hz approximates the static modulus relevant to long-term solid stress (Methods, Shear modulus calculation)
    The constitutive stress model is quasi-static, but the modulus is measured at multiple vibration frequencies.
  • standard math TransMorph diffeomorphic registration produces anatomically valid correspondences between tumor-bearing brains and the atlas (Methods, Registration)
    Relies on a published pretrained network; no validation of correspondence accuracy in these patients.
invented entities (1)
  • Excess solid stress (Σ_vol, Σ_shear)
    purpose: Composite biomarker defined as differential shear modulus times strain (Eq 12); used for survival association
    No external validation or direct measurement; computed from the same data used for the survival test.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of In Vivo Quantification of Glioma-Induced Solid Stress Using MR Elastography and Deformable Image Registration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AGOU2AKF

@misc{pith2026251000009,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: In Vivo Quantification of Glioma-Induced Solid Stress Using MR Elastography and Deformable Image Registration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AGOU2AKF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.00009}
}
read the original abstract

Solid stress is increasingly being recognized as a key driver of tumor progression and aggressiveness, yet it has not been directly measured in patients so far. Here, we combine multifrequency magnetic resonance elastography with 3D magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based diffeomorphic deformable image registration network analysis to noninvasively quantify glioma-induced solid stress. In both a mouse model and patients, we identified spatially heterogeneous deformation patterns extending well beyond tumor margins. While deformation magnitude was not found to correlate with tumor size or clinical outcome, excess solid stress - defined as the product of peritumoral volumetric strain and stiffness differential between unaffected brain and peritumoral tissue - was inversely associated with patient survival, highlighting its potential as a quantitative, imaging-derived biomarker. To our knowledge, this study provides the first direct quantification of mechanical stress in patients with glioma.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Ostrom, Q.T. et al. CBTRUS statistical report: Primary brain and central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2006-2010. Neuro Oncol 15 Suppl 2, ii1-56 (2013)

    2006

  2. [2]

    Krex, D. et al. Long-term survival with glioblastoma multiforme. Brain 130, 2596-2606 (2007)

    2007

  3. [3]

    & Medenwald, D

    Efremov, L., Abera, S.F., Bedir, A., Vordermark, D. & Medenwald, D. Patterns of glioblastoma treatment and survival over a 16-years period: pooled data from the German Cancer Registries. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 147, 3381-3390 (2021)

    2021

  4. [4]

    van den Bent, M.J. et al. Primary brain tumours in adults. Lancet 402, 1564-1579 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    & Corbetta, M

    Salvalaggio, A., Pini, L., Bertoldo, A. & Corbetta, M. Glioblastoma and brain connectivity: the need for a paradigm shift. Lancet Neurol 23, 740-748 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    Miroshnikova, Y.A. et al. Tissue mechanics promote IDH1-dependent HIF1 alpha- tenascin C feedback to regulate glioblastoma aggression. Nature Cell Biology 18, 1336-+ (2016)

    2016

  7. [7]

    Sun, Y. et al. Brain-wide neuronal circuit connectome of human glioblastoma. Nature 641, 222-231 (2025)

    2025

  8. [8]

    & Kumar, S

    Kim, Y. & Kumar, S. CD44-mediated adhesion to hyaluronic acid contributes to mechanosensing and invasive motility. Mol Cancer Res 12, 1416-1429 (2014)

    2014

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Wang, X. et al. Mechanical nanosurgery of chemoresistant glioblastoma using magnetically controlled carbon nanotubes. Sci Adv 9, eade5321 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Streibel, Y. et al. Tumor biomechanics as a novel imaging biomarker to assess response to immunotherapy in a murine glioma model. Sci Rep 14, 15613 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Magnetic resonance elastography from fundamental soft-tissue mechanics to diagnostic imaging

    Sack, I. Magnetic resonance elastography from fundamental soft-tissue mechanics to diagnostic imaging. Nature Reviews Physics 5, 25-42 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    Streitberger, K.J. et al. High-resolution mechanical imaging of glioblastoma by multifrequency magnetic resonance elastography. PLoS One 9, e110588 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    Reiss-Zimmermann, M. et al. High Resolution Imaging of Viscoelastic Properties of Intracranial Tumours by Multi-Frequency Magnetic Resonance Elastography. Clin Neuroradiol 25, 371-378 (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    & Patz, S

    Bunevicius, A., Schregel, K., Sinkus, R., Golby, A. & Patz, S. REVIEW: MR elastography of brain tumors. Neuroimage Clin 25, 102109 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Flogstad Svensson, S. et al. Decreased tissue stiffness in glioblastoma by MR elastography is associated with increased cerebral blood flow. Eur J Radiol 147, 110136 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Streitberger, K.J. et al. How tissue fluidity influences brain tumor progression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 117, 128-134 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    Sauer, F. et al. Changes in Tissue Fluidity Predict Tumor Aggressiveness In Vivo. Adv Sci (Weinh) 10, e2303523 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Prasanna, P. et al. Mass Effect Deformation Heterogeneity (MEDH) on Gadolinium- contrast T1-weighted MRI is associated with decreased survival in patients with right cerebral hemisphere Glioblastoma: A feasibility study. Sci Rep-Uk 9 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Ismail, M. et al. Radiomic Deformation and Textural Heterogeneity (R-DepTH) Descriptor to Characterize Tumor Field Effect: Application to Survival Prediction in Glioblastoma. Ieee T Med Imaging 41, 1764-1777 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    & Stylianopoulos, T

    Jain, R.K., Martin, J.D. & Stylianopoulos, T. The role of mechanical forces in tumor growth and therapy. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 16, 321-346 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    Pogoda, K. et al. Compression stiffening of brain and its effect on mechanosensing by glioma cells. New J Phys 16, 075002 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    Cai, G. et al. Compressive stress drives adhesion-dependent unjamming transitions in breast cancer cell migration. Front Cell Dev Biol 10, 933042 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    Hohmann, U. et al. Jamming Transitions in Astrocytes and Glioblastoma Are Induced by Cell Density and Tension. Cells 12, 29 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Seano, G. et al. Solid stress in brain tumours causes neuronal loss and neurological dysfunction and can be reversed by lithium. Nat Biomed Eng 3, 230-245 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    & Jain, R.K

    Nia, H.D.T., Munn, L.L. & Jain, R.K. CANCER Physical traits of cancer. Science 370, 546 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    Nia, H.T. et al. Solid stress and elastic energy as measures of tumour mechanopathology. Nat Biomed Eng 1, 0004 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Nia, H.T. et al. Quantifying solid stress and elastic energy from excised or in situ tumors. Nat Protoc 13, 1091-1105 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    Page, G. et al. Tumor Solid Stress: Assessment with MR Elastography under Compression of Patient-Derived Hepatocellular Carcinomas and Cholangiocarcinomas Xenografted in Mice. Cancers (Basel) 13, 1891 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Jaitner, N. et al. Noninvasive assessment of portal pressure by combined measurement of volumetric strain and stiffness of in vivo human liver. Acta Biomaterialia 197, 312-325 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    Pepin, K.M. et al. MR Elastography Analysis of Glioma Stiffness and IDH1-Mutation Status. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 39, 31-36 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Janas, A. et al. In vivo characterization of brain tumor biomechanics: magnetic resonance elastography in intracranial B16 melanoma and GL261 glioma mouse models. Front Oncol 14, 1402578 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    & Garcia, J.J

    Moran, R., Smith, J.H. & Garcia, J.J. Fitted hyperelastic parameters for Human brain tissue from reported tension, compression, and shear tests. J Biomech 47, 3762-3766 (2014)

    2014

  25. [33]

    & Willmes, K

    Huber, W., Poeck, K., Weniger, D. & Willmes, K. Aachener Aphasie-Test (AAT). (Verlag für Psychologie Dr. C.J. Hogrefe, 1983)

    1983

  26. [34]

    & Sack, I

    Bergs, J., Morr, A.S., Silva, R.V., Infante-Duarte, C. & Sack, I. The Networking Brain: How Extracellular Matrix, Cellular Networks, and Vasculature Shape the In Vivo Mechanical Properties of the Brain. Adv Sci (Weinh) 11, e2402338 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    & Seano, G

    Ballestin, A., Armocida, D., Ribecco, V. & Seano, G. Peritumoral brain zone in glioblastoma: biological, clinical and mechanical features. Front Immunol 15, 1347877 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Drumm, M.R. et al. Extensive brainstem infiltration, not mass effect, is a common feature of end-stage cerebral glioblastomas. Neuro Oncol 22, 470-479 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Lacroix, M. et al. A multivariate analysis of 416 patients with glioblastoma multiforme: prognosis, extent of resection, and survival. J Neurosurg 95, 190-198 (2001)

    2001

  30. [38]

    Steed, T.C. et al. Quantification of glioblastoma mass effect by lateral ventricle displacement. Sci Rep 8, 2827 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    Wang, C. et al. Matrix Stiffness Modulates Patient-Derived Glioblastoma Cell Fates in Three-Dimensional Hydrogels. Tissue Eng Part A 27, 390-401 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    Streitberger, K.J. et al. In vivo viscoelastic properties of the brain in normal pressure hydrocephalus. NMR Biomed 24, 385–392 (2011)

    2011

  33. [41]

    & Elmquist, W.F

    Agarwal, S., Sane, R., Oberoi, R., Ohlfest, J.R. & Elmquist, W.F. Delivery of molecularly targeted therapy to malignant glioma, a disease of the whole brain. Expert Rev Mol Med 13, e17 (2011)

    2011

  34. [42]

    Fierstra, J. et al. Diffuse gliomas exhibit whole brain impaired cerebrovascular reactivity. Magn Reson Imaging 45, 78-83 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    & Wesseling, P

    Claes, A., Idema, A.J. & Wesseling, P. Diffuse glioma growth: a guerilla war. Acta Neuropathol 114, 443-458 (2007)

    2007

  36. [44]

    & Braun, J

    Sack, I., Beierbach, B., Hamhaber, U., Klatt, D. & Braun, J. Non-invasive measurement of brain viscoelasticity using magnetic resonance elastography. NMR Biomed 21, 265-271 (2008)

    2008

  37. [45]

    Guo, J. et al. Towards an elastographic atlas of brain anatomy. PLoS One 8, e71807 (2013)

    2013

  38. [46]

    Nia, H.T. et al. Solid stress estimations via intraoperative 3D navigation in patients with brain tumors. Clin Cancer Res (2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    Ranft, J. et al. Fluidization of tissues by cell division and apoptosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107, 20863-20868 (2010)

    2010

  40. [48]

    Mazziotta, J. et al. A four-dimensional probabilistic atlas of the human brain. J Am Med Inform Assoc 8, 401-430 (2001)

    2001

  41. [49]

    & Henkelman, R.M

    Dorr, A.E., Lerch, J.P., Spring, S., Kabani, N. & Henkelman, R.M. High resolution three- dimensional brain atlas using an average magnetic resonance image of 40 adult C57Bl/6J mice. Neuroimage 42, 60-69 (2008)

    2008

  42. [50]

    Guo, J. et al. Brain maturation is associated with increasing tissue stiffness and decreasing tissue fluidity. Acta Biomaterialia 99, 433-442 (2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    Jelgersma, C. et al. Establishment and Validation of CyberKnife Irradiation in a Syngeneic Glioblastoma Mouse Model. Cancers (Basel) 13, 3416 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    Herthum, H. et al. Cerebral tomoelastography based on multifrequency MR elastography in two and three dimensions. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 10, 1056131 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    Meyer, T. et al. Comparison of inversion methods in MR elastography: An open-access pipeline for processing multifrequency shear-wave data and demonstration in a phantom, human kidneys, and brain. Magn Reson Med 88, 1840-1850 (2022)

    2022

  46. [54]

    Tzschatzsch, H. et al. Tomoelastography by multifrequency wave number recovery from time-harmonic propagating shear waves. Medical Image Analysis 30, 1-10 (2016)

    2016

  47. [55]

    Manduca, A. et al. MR elastography: Principles, guidelines, and terminology. Magn Reson Med 85, 2377-2390 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    Klemmer Chandia, S. et al. Multimodal assessment of brain stiffness variation in healthy subjects using magnetic resonance elastography and ultrasound time-harmonic elastography. Sci Rep 14, 28580 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    & Hoffmann, M

    Hoopes, A., Mora, J.S., Dalca, A.V., Fischl, B. & Hoffmann, M. SynthStrip: skull-stripping for any brain image. Neuroimage 260, 119474 (2022)

    2022

  50. [58]

    Lin, Y. et al. RS2-Net: An end-to-end deep learning framework for rodent skull stripping in multi-center brain MRI. NeuroImage 298, 120769 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    Avants, B.B. et al. A reproducible evaluation of ANTs similarity metric performance in brain image registration. Neuroimage 54, 2033-2044 (2011)

  52. [60]

    Chen, J. et al. TransMorph: Transformer for unsupervised medical image registration. Med Image Anal 82, 102615 (2022)

    2022

  53. [61]

    McGarry, M.D.J. et al. An octahedral shear strain-based measure of SNR for 3D MR elastography. Physics in Medicine and Biology 56, N153-N164 (2011)

    2011

  54. [62]

    Whittall, K.P. et al. In vivo measurement of T2 distributions and water contents in normal human brain. Magn Reson Med 37, 34-43 (1997)

    1997

  55. [63]

    Soza, G. et al. Determination of the elasticity parameters of brain tissue with combined simulation and registration. Int J Med Robot 1, 87-95 (2005)

    2005

  56. [64]

    & Darvish, K

    Laksari, K., Shafieian, M. & Darvish, K. Constitutive model for brain tissue under finite compression. J Biomech 45, 642-646 (2012)

    2012

  57. [65]

    & Shafieian, M

    Eskandari, F., Rahmani, Z. & Shafieian, M. The effect of large deformation on Poisson's ratio of brain white matter: An experimental study. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 235, 401-407 (2021)

    2021

  58. [66]

    & Zahediasl, S

    Ghasemi, A. & Zahediasl, S. Normality tests for statistical analysis: a guide for non- statisticians. Int J Endocrinol Metab 10, 486-489 (2012)

    2012

  59. [67]

    & Medeiros, F.M

    Pereira, D.G., Afonso, A. & Medeiros, F.M. Overview of Friedman's Test and Post-hoc Analysis. Commun Stat-Simul C 44, 2636-2653 (2015)

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.