Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 100 references

Advanced encoding methods in diffusion MRI

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Tensor-valued encoding separates microscopic diffusion anisotropy from orientation dispersion in diffusion MRI

desk verdict A genuinely useful tutorial review of tensor-valued diffusion MRI encoding, but with a concrete algebraic slip in the Sec. 7.3 orientational order parameter derivation that needs fixing before it can be trusted as a reference. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04177 v3 pith:HNROFOYO submitted 2019-08-12 physics.med-ph physics.chem-ph

Alexis Reymbaut , Maxime Descoteaux This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.med-phphysics.chem-ph PACS 87.61.-c
keywords diffusionMRItensor-valuedencodingb-tensormicroscopicfractionalanisotropytensordistributionpowderaveragingdiffusionalvariancedecompositionq-trajectory
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 document is a self-contained introduction to diffusion MRI, from the quantum spin to modern encoding, but its core argument is that the field's standard tool, diffusion tensor imaging, is intrinsically non-specific. Different tissue arrangements, such as crossing fibers, demyelination, and inflammation, can produce the same voxel-averaged diffusion tensor and thus the same DTI signal. The paper contends that tensor-valued encoding, which rotates the diffusion-sensitizing gradient so that the encoding has a chosen shape (linear, planar, or spherical), changes what the measurement sees and makes it possible to separate isotropic heterogeneity, microscopic anisotropy, and orientational order. If this is right, diffusion MRI can assess sub-voxel tissue structure non-invasively, without committing to a biophysical model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the b-tensor $B = \int_0^\tau q^2(t)\,n(t)n^{\mathsf T}(t)\,dt$, whose shape is set by the q-trajectory, paired with the Frobenius inner product $B:D$ that replaces the scalar $bD$ of conventional diffusion weighting. Because the shape of $B$ selects which projection of the diffusion tensor distribution is probed, two encodings with different shapes give variances whose difference isolates microscopic anisotropy from isotropic heterogeneity and orientation order. The diffusion tensor distribution $P(D)$, under the Gaussian and no-exchange assumptions, is the model that makes those projections interpretable.

What would settle it

Acquire linear- and spherical-encoding powder-averaged signals in a phantom of known pore size and in fixed neural tissue, over b-values up to about 10 ms/µm² and at two diffusion times. If the variance difference $\mu_2^{\mathrm{lin}}-\mu_2^{\mathrm{sph}}$ changes with diffusion time, or if the gamma-distribution fit of Eq. (205) deviates beyond noise at high b, the Gaussian, no-exchange tensor-distribution assumption behind the advanced-encoding metrics fails for that sample.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that DTI's limitation is an encoding limitation, not just an inverse-problem nuisance. When the signal is written as $S=S_0\int P(D)e^{-B:D}dD$, the b-tensor $B$ determines which projection of the diffusion tensor distribution $P(D)$ is measured. A linear b-tensor, as in conventional DWI, mixes microscopic anisotropy with orientation dispersion, while a spherical b-tensor isolates the isotropic part, and the difference between the two variances is proportional to the mean squared microscopic anisotropy. The paper derives the powder-averaged signal, its cumulant expansion, and the variance decomposition that yields the microscopic fractional anisotropy and orientational order parameter, and it closes with the covariance-tensor approximation that avoids powder averaging altogether.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative framework assumes that within each microscopic environment water diffusion is Gaussian and water does not move between environments during the measurement; the paper explicitly says this assumption must be validated in future studies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Combining linear and spherical (or at least two distinct) encoding shapes yields separate estimates of mean diffusivity, isotropic variance, microscopic anisotropy, and orientational order from the same acquisition framework.
  • The difference between linear and spherical second moments is proportional to the mean squared diffusion anisotropy of the microscopic tensors, giving a direct readout that does not require biophysical modeling.
  • In the tumor application, meningiomas and glioblastomas, which both show low FA, become distinguishable through their microscopic fractional anisotropy.
  • The gamma-distribution fit provides an analytic signal form that remains accurate beyond the cumulant expansion's range, extending usable b-values while staying within clinically feasible scan times.
  • Because the encoding tensor's shape is set by the q-trajectory, arbitrary b-tensor shapes can be generated from simple axial waveforms, making the approach implementable on clinical scanners.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: combining linear and spherical encoding with oscillating or spectrally modulated gradients would add a time-dependence axis to the same variance decomposition, potentially estimating restriction sizes without biophysical modeling.
  • Extension: the linear-versus-spherical variance difference is a candidate imaging biomarker that a prospective histology-calibrated study in one tumor type could validate directly; the paper shows feasibility but stops short of that validation.
  • Extension: the solid-state NMR analogy suggests that optimal q-trajectory designs, not discussed quantitatively here, could shorten scans or sharpen the conditioning of the covariance-tensor estimate.
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

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a self-contained tutorial/review of advanced encoding methods in diffusion MRI. It opens with NMR physics (spin, Bloch sphere, relaxation, spin echo), introduces diffusion and DWI/DTI, discusses tensor parameterizations, tensor-valued (b-tensor) encoding and waveform design, diffusion tensor distributions and ensemble statistics, and closes with methods for extracting microscopic anisotropy (powder averaging, cumulant expansion, Gamma fitting, DIVIDE, covariance tensor). The stated aim is to build a short but solid and logical path from spin to current limitations and advanced encoding methods such as tensor-valued encoding.

Significance. If the equations are correct, the paper fills a useful pedagogical gap: it collects derivations and recent tensor-valued-encoding concepts in one place, with clear notation (Haeberlen vs standard conventions, Frobenius product, b-tensor shapes) and honest statements of assumptions, notably Sec. 3.3, which explicitly flags that the diffusion tensor distribution model must be validated. Its strengths are the careful self-contained derivations of the b-value, the Frobenius inner product, the powder-averaged signal, and the DIVIDE metrics, as well as the effective visualizations. The paper does not contain new empirical results; its value is expository, so its significance for a research journal is moderate.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. 7.3, Eq. (190)] The angular-averaging identity used here is incorrect by a factor of two. For a uniaxial orientation distribution and a fixed radial direction, azimuthal averaging gives <P2(cos(θ+π/2))> = −1/2 <P2(cos θ)>, not −<P2(cos θ)>. Consequently Eq. (190) should read <D⊥> = <D> − (1/3)(D∥−D⊥)<P2(cos θ)>, and inserting the printed Eqs. (189)–(190) into Eq. (191) yields (4/3)<P2(cos θ)> rather than SZZ. The final expressions (195)–(196) are consistent with the corrected sign and factor, so the error is local, but it breaks the internal consistency of the orientational-order-parameter derivation and should be fixed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.2.2] The citation "[9, 10, 11 ?]" contains a formatting artifact; it should read "[9, 10, 11]" since Ref. [11] is listed in the bibliography.
  2. [Sec. 5.3.1, Eq. (133)] In the expression for G(t), the third component of the second vector should be 0, not cos ζ, because it comes from the time derivative of n(t); the subsequent Eq. (135) is consistent with the corrected expression.
  3. [Sec. 7.3] The sentence introducing Eq. (189) contains a duplicated article: "the the macroscopic axial and radial diffusivity" should read "the macroscopic axial and radial diffusivity".
  4. [Sec. 7.3] The sentence preceding Eq. (195) reads "Eqs. (192) and (193) can now be combines to match" and should be corrected to "can now be combined to match".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a tutorial that re-derives known results from cited external literature; the authors' self-citation is transparent and not load-bearing.

full rationale

This manuscript is an educational review rather than an original research claim. Its derivations, such as the DWI signal attenuation in Sec. 3.1, the b-tensor encoding formalism in Sec. 5, and the powder-averaged cumulant expansion in Sec. 7.2, follow stated assumptions and cite independent prior work for each major step. The orientational order parameter derivation in Sec. 7.3 defines OP as <P2(cos theta)> and then algebraically relates it to the ratio of ensemble-averaged diffusivity differences; Eqs. (191), (195), and (196) are identities following from the definitions of mu2 and muFA2, not fitted parameters relabeled as predictions. The gamma-distribution fitting in Sec. 7.4.2 is explicitly presented as a convenient approximation with an analytic Laplace transform, and the DIVIDE decomposition is attributed to Refs. [61, 80, 6]. The only self-citation is Ref. [70], the first author's own book chapter, which is acknowledged at the start of Sec. 7 as the source of that section. That citation is transparent, the chapter is independently published, and the section's formulas are supported by additional external references such as [62, 71, 79]. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via a self-citation. Any possible algebraic slip in Sec. 7.3 would be a correctness issue, not circularity. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained relative to its tutorial purpose, and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is a review, so the central claim is pedagogical. The scientific content it presents relies on the DTD model assumptions, which are explicitly stated in Sec. 3.3. These assumptions are domain assumptions that the authors themselves flag as needing validation. There are no fitted parameters or invented entities because the work introduces no new empirical model.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Diffusion in each microscopic environment is approximately Gaussian.
    Invoked in Sec. 3.3.1 as the first assumption of the DTD model; the paper notes it is violated in biological tissues but argues the effect is small for moderate attenuation.
  • domain assumption Diffusing particles do not exchange between environments during encoding.
    Second assumption of the DTD model in Sec. 3.3.2; the paper argues exchange is negligible for conventional diffusion times in healthy tissue, but may fail in disease.
  • domain assumption The DTD model is sufficiently accurate for the described tissue.
    Stated in Sec. 3.3.1, acknowledged as needing validation; underlies the derivations of powder-averaged signal and microscopic anisotropy metrics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Advanced encoding methods in diffusion MRI." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HNROFOYO

@misc{pith2026190804177,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Advanced encoding methods in diffusion MRI},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HNROFOYO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04177}
}
read the original abstract

Discovering a new field is not usually an easy process, especially when you choose magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MRI is one of the few non-invasive medical procedures, if not the only one, that someone can receive in modern day hospitals. Its high sensitivity is a true prowess that is due to three things: subtle quantum physics, great engineering and clever imaging techniques from mathematics and computing science. However, the mathematics and physics of it are already daunting tasks by themselves, which makes MRI difficult to comprehend. This document paves a rather short, yet solid and logical, path from the subtle concept of spin to the current limitations of diffusion MRI. It then describes more advanced encoding methods designed to overcome diffusion MRI's limitations, such as tensor-valued encoding.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04177 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Bloch sphere graphically representing all normalized 1/2-spin states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. [a] Depending on the local density of spins, different parts of the brain exhibit different total spins (sky blue arrows). Once aligned in average by the B0 field (green arrow), the magnetic moments borne by these spins sum up to a magnetization for the whole brain (dark blue arrow). [b] View from above after the 90◦ RF pulse in the case of a perfect medium. All spins precess at the same rate, maintaining the whole … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of T1 and T2 as a function of the tumbling rate ωtumbling. The colored areas correspond to the distribution of spins in given media along the tumbling rate axis. The small dip in T2 relaxation around ω0 happens because of the boost in T1 processes that also generate some additional T2 relaxation. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (18 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cover of one of the 1953 Physics Today magazines presenting the race analogy for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: [a] Spins usually precess at different rate within the x-y plane after the 90◦ RF pulse. [b] Adding a 180◦ RF pulse to the sequence acts as a mirror reversing for spins. [c] Still precessing in the exact same way as initially, spins refocus after twice the amount of ti…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: Nine two-dimensional random walks, all starting from the black point. Right: Associated mean squared displacement hr 2 i (over the nine random walks in the left panel) as a function of diffusion time τ. Dashed line indicates the analytic result Eq. (33). Imperfec…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Collections of random walks similar to those of Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: Stejskal-Tanner MRI sequence. While the 90◦ and 180◦ RF pulses are indicated by black vertical lines, the slice-select gradient and the diffusion gradient are represented in red and blue, respectively. Right: Modified version of the sequence, showing the effectiv…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Expressions of the spin dephasing vector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left: Typical glioma structure, where diffusion occurs with varying isotropy at the mi￾crometer scale, hence the description in terms of isotropic diffusion tensors (blue glyphs). Right: Typical meningioma structure, where diffusion occurs anisotropically at the micro…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Definition of the diffusion tensor’s principal axes, given by its eigenvectors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Voxels associated to typical brain tissues. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Quantitative measures of the shape of 3×3 symmetric tensors. (a) Linear, planar, and spherical tensor shapes represented as grayscale checkerboard plots of the tensor elements in the diagonal basis and superquadratic tensor glyphs with semi-axes corresponding to the t…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Alternative measures of tensor anisotropy vs. the anisotropy parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Different examples of q-trajectories. While the three top panels are trivial (the q-vector only points out and back in along the main axes of the frame of reference), the bottom panel presents a non-trivial q-trajectory. Figure taken from Ref. [53]. b-tensor encoding …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: a) Design of an axial gradient waveform GA(t) satisfying the echo condition Eq. (60) for the q-vector, ensuring the correct b-value (b-tensor size) and parametrizing the angle of rotation ψ(t) during the q-trajectory via Eq. (131). b) Framework characterizing the rota…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Validity of the monoexponential (blue), two-term cumulant (green), and Gamma dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p056_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Detection of microscopic diffusion anisotropy by comparing linear (a) and spherical (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p057_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Various diffusivity distributions P(D) that yield similar diffusion-weighted signals. The signals are computed from Eq. (68) with a powder-averaged signal Eq. (173), aiming at similar MD and variance. All diffusivity distributions render similar signal curves for mode…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Left: Total mean kurtosis MKT (similar to DKI), anisotropic mean kurtosis MKA (normalized anisotropy), isotropic mean kurtosis MKI (normalized isotropic variance) and fluid￾attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) image (black and white) where MKA and MKI are super￾impos…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Archetypal intra-voxel tensor distributions. The parameters show the isotropic and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p065_21.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [15]

    Szczepankiewicz, Imaging diffusional variance by MRI: The role of tensor-valued diffusion encoding and tissue heterogeneity, PhD thesis, Lund University, 2016

    F. Szczepankiewicz, Imaging diffusional variance by MRI: The role of tensor-valued diffusion encoding and tissue heterogeneity, PhD thesis, Lund University, 2016

    2016

  2. [53]

    Topgaard, Multidimensional diffusion MRI, Journal of Magnetic Resonance 275, 98 (2017)

    D. Topgaard, Multidimensional diffusion MRI, Journal of Magnetic Resonance 275, 98 (2017). 64

    work page 2017

  3. [70]

    Reymbaut, Chapter 3 - diffusion anisotropy and tensor-valued encoding, in Advanced Diffusion Encoding Methods in MRI, The Royal Society of Chemistry, 2019

    A. Reymbaut, Chapter 3 - diffusion anisotropy and tensor-valued encoding, in Advanced Diffusion Encoding Methods in MRI, The Royal Society of Chemistry, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [1]

    Bloch, Nuclear Induction, Phys

    F. Bloch, Nuclear Induction, Phys. Rev. 70, 460 (1946)

    1946

  5. [2]

    E. L. Hahn, Spin Echoes, Phys. Rev. 80, 580 (1950)

    1950

  6. [3]

    J. S. W. Campbell, Diffusion Imaging of White Matter Fibre Tracts, PhD thesis, McGill Univer- sity, 2004

    2004

  7. [4]

    E. O. Stejskal and J. E. Tanner, Spin Diffusion Measurements: Spin Echoes in the Presence of a Time-Dependent Field Gradient, The Journal of Chemical Physics 42, 288 (1965)

    1965

  8. [5]

    P . J. Basser, J. Mattiello, and D. LeBihan, MR diffusion tensor spectroscopy and imaging , Bio- phys J 66, 259 (1994)

    1994

Show all 100 references
  1. [6]

    F. Szczepankiewicz et al., The link between diffusion MRI and tumor heterogeneity: Mapping cell eccentricity and density by diffusional variance decomposition (DIVIDE) , NeuroImage 142, 522 (2016)

    2016

  2. [7]

    M. E. Moseley et al., Early detection of regional cerebral ischemia in cats: Comparison of diffusion- and T2-weighted MRI and spectroscopy, Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 14, 330 (1990)

    1990

  3. [8]

    Lebel, L

    C. Lebel, L. Walker, A. Leemans, L. Phillips, and C. Beaulieu, Microstructural maturation of the human brain from childhood to adulthood, NeuroImage 40, 1044 (2008)

    2008

  4. [9]

    A. L. Alexander, K. M. Hasan, M. Lazar, J. S. Tsuruda, and D. L. Parker, Analysis of partial volume effects in diffusion-tensor MRI, Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 45, 770 (2001)

    2001

  5. [10]

    A. L. Alexander, J. E. Lee, M. Lazar, and A. S. Field, Diffusion tensor imaging of the brain , Neurotherapeutics 4, 316 (2007)

    2007

  6. [11]

    D. K. Jones and M. Cercignani, Twenty-five pitfalls in the analysis of diffusion MRI data, NMR in Biomedicine 23, 803 (2010)

    2010

  7. [12]

    Pierpaoli, P

    C. Pierpaoli, P . Jezzard, P . J. Basser, A. Barnett, and G. D. Chiro,Diffusion tensor MR imaging of the human brain., Radiology 201, 637 (1996)

    1996

  8. [13]

    G. Douaud et al., DTI measures in crossing-fibre areas: Increased diffusion anisotropy reveals early white matter alteration in MCI and mild Alzheimer’s disease, NeuroImage 55, 880 (2011)

    2011

  9. [14]

    Jeurissen, A

    B. Jeurissen, A. Leemans, J.-D. Tournier, D. K. Jones, and J. Sijbers,Investigating the prevalence of complex fiber configurations in white matter tissue with diffusion magnetic resonance imaging , Human Brain Mapping 34, 2747 (2013)

    2013

  10. [16]

    T. M. de Swiet and P . P . Mitra, Possible Systematic Errors in Single-Shot Measurements of the Trace of the Diffusion Tensor, Journal of Magnetic Resonance, Series B 111, 15 (1996)

    1996

  11. [17]

    Beaulieu, The basis of anisotropic water diffusion in the nervous system a technical review , NMR in Biomedicine 15, 435 (2002)

    C. Beaulieu, The basis of anisotropic water diffusion in the nervous system a technical review , NMR in Biomedicine 15, 435 (2002)

    2002

  12. [18]

    D. A. Yablonskiy, G. L. Bretthorst, and J. J. Ackerman, Statistical model for diffusion attenuated MR signal, Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 50, 664 (2003). 62

    2003

  13. [19]

    P . T. Callaghan, A. Coy, D. MacGowan, K. J. Packer, and F. O. Zelaya, Diffraction-like effects in NMR diffusion studies of fluids in porous solids, Nature 351, 467 (1991)

    1991

  14. [20]

    Topgaard and O

    D. Topgaard and O. Sderman, Experimental determination of pore shape and size using q-space NMR microscopy in the long diffusion-time limit, Magnetic Resonance Imaging 21, 69 (2003)

    2003

  15. [21]

    Nilsson et al., Evaluating the accuracy and precision of a two-compartment Krger model using Monte Carlo simulations, Journal of Magnetic Resonance 206, 59 (2010)

    M. Nilsson et al., Evaluating the accuracy and precision of a two-compartment Krger model using Monte Carlo simulations, Journal of Magnetic Resonance 206, 59 (2010)

    2010

  16. [22]

    J. C. Gore et al., Characterization of tissue structure at varying length scales using temporal diffu- sion spectroscopy, NMR in Biomedicine 23, 745 (2010)

    2010

  17. [23]

    D. E. Woessner, NMR spin-echo self-diffusion measurements on fluids undergoing restricted dif- fusion, The Journal of Physical Chemistry 67, 1365 (1963)

    1963

  18. [24]

    R. E. Beck and J. S. Schultz, Hindered Diffusion in Microporous Membranes with Known Pore Geometry, Science 170, 1302 (1970)

    1970

  19. [25]

    G. J. Stanisz, G. A. Wright, R. M. Henkelman, and A. Szafer, An analytical model of restricted diffusion in bovine optic nerve, Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 37, 103 (1997)

    1997

  20. [26]

    Assaf, A

    Y. Assaf, A. Mayk, and Y. Cohen, Displacement imaging of spinal cord using q-space diffusion- weighted MRI, Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 44, 713 (2000)

    2000

  21. [27]

    M. D. Does, E. C. Parsons, and J. C. Gore, Oscillating gradient measurements of water diffusion in normal and globally ischemic rat brain, Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 49, 206 (2003)

    2003

  22. [28]

    Assaf, T

    Y. Assaf, T. Blumenfeld-Katzir, Y. Yovel, and P . J. Basser, Axcaliber: A method for measur- ing axon diameter distribution from diffusion MRI , Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 59, 1347 (2008)

    2008

  23. [29]

    Lundell, C

    H. Lundell, C. K. Snderby, and T. B. Dyrby,Diffusion weighted imaging with circularly polarized oscillating gradients, Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 73, 1171 (2015)

    2015

  24. [30]

    L. M. Burcaw, E. Fieremans, and D. S. Novikov, Mesoscopic structure of neuronal tracts from time-dependent diffusion, NeuroImage 114, 18 (2015)

    2015

  25. [31]

    C. A. Clark, M. Hedehus, and M. E. Moseley,Diffusion time dependence of the apparent diffusion tensor in healthy human brain and white matter disease , Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 45, 1126 (2001)

    2001

  26. [32]

    Ronen, S

    I. Ronen, S. Moeller, K. Ugurbil, and D.-S. Kim, Analysis of the distribution of diffusion co- efficients in cat brain at 9.4 T using the inverse Laplace transformation , Magnetic Resonance Imaging 24, 61 (2006)

    2006

  27. [33]

    Nilsson et al., On the effects of a varied diffusion time in vivo: is the diffusion in white matter restricted?, Magnetic Resonance Imaging 27, 176 (2009)

    M. Nilsson et al., On the effects of a varied diffusion time in vivo: is the diffusion in white matter restricted?, Magnetic Resonance Imaging 27, 176 (2009)

    2009

  28. [34]

    S. D. Santis, D. K. Jones, and A. Roebroeck, Including diffusion time dependence in the extra- axonal space improves in vivo estimates of axonal diameter and density in human white matter , NeuroImage 130, 91 (2016)

    2016

  29. [35]

    J. D. Quirk et al., Equilibrium water exchange between the intra- and extracellular spaces of mam- malian brain, Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 50, 493 (2003)

    2003

  30. [36]

    Nilsson, Biophysical modelling in diffusion MRI: The role of tissue microstructure and water exchange, PhD thesis, Medical Radiation Physics, Lund, 2011

    M. Nilsson, Biophysical modelling in diffusion MRI: The role of tissue microstructure and water exchange, PhD thesis, Medical Radiation Physics, Lund, 2011. 63

    2011

  31. [37]

    Nilsson, D

    M. Nilsson, D. van Westen, F. St ˚ahlberg, P . C. Sundgren, and J. L ¨att, The role of tissue mi- crostructure and water exchange in biophysical modelling of diffusion in white matter , Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine 26, 345 (2013)

    2013

  32. [38]

    Nilsson et al., Noninvasive mapping of water diffusional exchange in the human brain using filter-exchange imaging, Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 69, 1572 (2013)

    M. Nilsson et al., Noninvasive mapping of water diffusional exchange in the human brain using filter-exchange imaging, Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 69, 1572 (2013)

    2013

  33. [39]

    B. Lampinen et al., Optimal experimental design for filter exchange imaging: Apparent exchange rate measurements in the healthy brain and in intracranial tumors , Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 77, 1104 (2017)

    2017

  34. [40]

    Ltt et al., Diffusion-weighted MRI measurements on stroke patients reveal water-exchange mech- anisms in sub-acute ischaemic lesions, NMR in Biomedicine 22, 619 (2009)

    J. Ltt et al., Diffusion-weighted MRI measurements on stroke patients reveal water-exchange mech- anisms in sub-acute ischaemic lesions, NMR in Biomedicine 22, 619 (2009)

    2009

  35. [41]

    D. S. Novikov and V . G. Kiselev, Effective medium theory of a diffusion-weighted signal , NMR in Biomedicine 23, 682 (2010)

    2010

  36. [42]

    V . G. Kiselev,Fundamentals of diffusion MRI physics, NMR in Biomedicine 30, e3602 (2017)

    2017

  37. [43]

    D. S. Novikov, E. Fieremans, J. H. Jensen, and J. A. Helpern, Random walks with barriers , Nature Physics 7, 508 EP (2011)

    2011

  38. [44]

    D. S. Novikov, J. H. Jensen, J. A. Helpern, and E. Fieremans, Revealing mesoscopic structural universality with diffusion, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences111, 5088 (2014)

    2014

  39. [45]

    D. Topgaard, Chapter 7 - NMR methods for studying microscopic diffusion anisotropy, in Diffusion NMR of Confined Systems: Fluid Transport in Porous Solids and Heterogeneous Materi- als, pp. 226–259, The Royal Society of Chemistry, 2017

    2017

  40. [46]

    Westin et al., Processing and visualization for diffusion tensor MRI, Medical Image Anal- ysis 6, 93 (2002)

    C.-F. Westin et al., Processing and visualization for diffusion tensor MRI, Medical Image Anal- ysis 6, 93 (2002)

    2002

  41. [47]

    Haeberlen, High resolution NMR in solids : selective averaging(Academic Press, New York, 1976)

    U. Haeberlen, High resolution NMR in solids : selective averaging(Academic Press, New York, 1976)

    1976

  42. [48]

    PB and M

    K. PB and M. WG., Contrast-to-noise ratios of diffusion anisotropy indices, Magn Reson Med 2005;53:911-918., Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 54, 251 (2005)

    2005

  43. [49]

    T. E. Conturo, R. C. McKinstry, E. Akbudak, and B. H. Robinson, Encoding of anisotropic diffusion with tetrahedral gradients: A general mathematical diffusion for- malism and experimental results , Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 35, 399 (1996), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/...

    1996 doi

  44. [50]

    P . J. Basser and C. Pierpaoli, Microstructural and physiological features of tissues elucidated by quantitative-diffusion-tensor MRI, Journal of Magnetic Resonance 213, 560 (2011)

    2011

  45. [51]

    A. L. Alexander, K. Hasan, G. Kindlmann, D. L. Parker, and J. S. Tsuruda, A geometric analysis of diffusion tensor measurements of the human brain, Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 44, 283 (2000)

    2000

  46. [52]

    A. M. Ulug and P . C. van Zijl, Orientation-independent diffusion imaging without tensor diago- nalization: Anisotropy definitions based on physical attributes of the diffusion ellipsoid , Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 9, 804 (1999)

    1999

  47. [54]

    E. R. Andrew, A. Bradbury, and R. G. Eades, Removal of Dipolar Broadening of Nuclear Mag- netic Resonance Spectra of Solids by Specimen Rotation, Nature 183, 1802 (1959)

    1959

  48. [55]

    Schmidt-Rohr and H

    K. Schmidt-Rohr and H. Spiess, Multidimensional Solid-State NMR and Polymers (Academic Press, San Diego, 1994)

    1994

  49. [56]

    H. C. Torrey, Bloch Equations with Diffusion Terms, Phys. Rev. 104, 563 (1956)

    1956

  50. [57]

    W. S. Price, NMR studies of translational motion: principles and applications (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2009)

    2009

  51. [58]

    S. Lasi, M. Nilsson, J. Ltt, F. Sthlberg, and D. Topgaard, Apparent exchange rate mapping with diffusion MRI, Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 66, 356 (2011)

    2011

  52. [59]

    D. L. Bihan et al., MR imaging of intravoxel incoherent motions: application to diffusion and perfusion in neurologic disorders., Radiology 161, 401 (1986)

    1986

  53. [60]

    Eriksson, S

    S. Eriksson, S. Lasic, and D. Topgaard, Isotropic diffusion weighting in PGSE NMR by magic- angle spinning of the q-vector, Journal of Magnetic Resonance 226, 13 (2013)

    2013

  54. [61]

    S. Lasi, F. Szczepankiewicz, S. Eriksson, M. Nilsson, and D. Topgaard,Microanisotropy imag- ing: quantification of microscopic diffusion anisotropy and orientational order parameter by diffu- sion MRI with magic-angle spinning of the q-vector, Frontiers in Physics 2, 11 (2014)

    2014

  55. [62]

    Eriksson, S

    S. Eriksson, S. Lasi, M. Nilsson, C.-F. Westin, and D. Topgaard, NMR diffusion-encoding with axial symmetry and variable anisotropy: Distinguishing between prolate and oblate microscopic diffusion tensors with unknown orientation distribution , The Journal of Chemical Physics ...

    2015

  56. [63]

    Westin et al., Q-space trajectory imaging for multidimensional diffusion MRI of the human brain, NeuroImage 135, 345 (2016)

    C.-F. Westin et al., Q-space trajectory imaging for multidimensional diffusion MRI of the human brain, NeuroImage 135, 345 (2016)

    2016

  57. [64]

    D. G. Cory, A. N. Garroway, and J. B. Miller, Applications of spin transport as a probe of local geometry, 31, 149 (1990)

    1990

  58. [65]

    E. C. Wong, R. W. Cox, and A. W. Song, Optimized isotropic diffusion weighting , Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 34, 139 (1995)

    1995

  59. [66]

    Sjlund et al., Constrained optimization of gradient waveforms for generalized diffusion encoding, Journal of Magnetic Resonance 261, 157 (2015)

    J. Sjlund et al., Constrained optimization of gradient waveforms for generalized diffusion encoding, Journal of Magnetic Resonance 261, 157 (2015)

    2015

  60. [67]

    Szczepankiewicz, C.-F

    F. Szczepankiewicz, C.-F. Westin, and M. Nilsson, Maxwell-compensated design of asymmetric gradient waveforms for tensor-valued diffusion encoding , Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 82, 1424 (2019)

    2019

  61. [68]

    Lundell et al., Microscopic anisotropy with spectrally modulated q-space trajectory en- coding, in International Society for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (ISMRM), 2017

    H. Lundell et al., Microscopic anisotropy with spectrally modulated q-space trajectory en- coding, in International Society for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (ISMRM), 2017

    2017

  62. [69]

    S. Lasi, H. Lundell, D. Topgaard, and T. B. Dyrby, Effects of imaging gradients in sequences with varying longitudinal storage timeCase of diffusion exchange imaging , Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (2017)

    2017

  63. [71]

    Saupe and G

    A. Saupe and G. Englert, High-Resolution Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectra of Orientated Molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett. 11, 462 (1963). 65

    1963

  64. [72]

    Schmidt-Rohr and H

    K. Schmidt-Rohr and H. W. Spiess, Multidimensional Solid-State NMR and Polymers (Aca- demic Press, San Diego, 1994)

    1994

  65. [73]

    Bloembergen and T

    N. Bloembergen and T. Rowland, On the nuclear magnetic resonance in metals and alloys, Acta Metallurgica 1, 731 (1953)

    1953

  66. [74]

    Herberthson, C

    M. Herberthson, C. Yolcu, H. Knutsson, C.-F. Westin, and E. ¨Ozarslan, Orientationally- averaged diffusion-attenuated magnetic resonance signal for locally-anisotropic diffusion, Scientific Reports 9, 4899 (2019)

    2019

  67. [75]

    Szczepankiewicz, C.-F

    F. Szczepankiewicz, C.-F. Westin, F. Sthlberg, J. Ltt, and M. Nilsson, Minimum number of diffusion encoding directions required to yield a rotationally invariant powder average signal in single and double diffusion encoding, inInternational Society for Magnetic Resonance Imagi...

    2016

  68. [76]

    Edn, Computer simulations in solid-state NMR

    M. Edn, Computer simulations in solid-state NMR. III. Powder averaging, Concepts in Magnetic Resonance Part A 18A, 24 (2003)

    2003

  69. [77]

    B. J. Frisken, Revisiting the method of cumulants for the analysis of dynamic light-scattering data, Appl. Opt. 40, 4087 (2001)

    2001

  70. [78]

    D. E. Koppel, Analysis of Macromolecular Polydispersity in Intensity Correlation Spectroscopy: The Method of Cumulants, The Journal of Chemical Physics 57, 4814 (1972)

    1972

  71. [79]

    D. L. VanderHart and H. S. Gutowsky, RigidLattice NMR Moments and Line Shapes with ChemicalShift Anisotropy, The Journal of Chemical Physics 49, 261 (1968)

    1968

  72. [80]

    F. Szczepankiewicz et al., Quantification of microscopic diffusion anisotropy disentangles effects of orientation dispersion from microstructure: Applications in healthy volunteers and in brain tumors, NeuroImage 104, 241 (2015)

    2015

  73. [81]

    Szczepankiewicz, J

    F. Szczepankiewicz, J. Sjlund, F. Sthlberg, J. Ltt, and M. Nilsson, Tensor-valued diffusion encoding for diffusional variance decomposition (DIVIDE): Technical feasibility in clinical MRI systems, PLOS ONE 14, 1 (2019)

    2019

  74. [82]

    J. H. Jensen, J. A. Helpern, A. Ramani, H. Lu, and K. Kaczynski, Diffusional kurtosis imag- ing: The quantification of non-gaussian water diffusion by means of magnetic resonance imaging , Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 53, 1432 (2005)

    2005

  75. [83]

    R. N. Henriques, S. N. Jespersen, and N. Shemesh, Microscopic anisotropy misestimation in spherical-mean single diffusion encoding MRI , Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 81, 3245 (2019)

    2019

  76. [84]

    Hong et al., PFG n.m.r

    U. Hong et al., PFG n.m.r. study of diffusion anisotropy in oriented ZSM-5 type zeolite crystallites, Zeolites 11, 816 (1991)

    1991

  77. [85]

    Lawrenz, M

    M. Lawrenz, M. A. Koch, and J. Finsterbusch, A tensor model and measures of microscopic anisotropy for double-wave-vector diffusion-weighting experiments with long mixing times, Journal of Magnetic Resonance 202, 43 (2010)

    2010

  78. [86]

    Lawrenz and J

    M. Lawrenz and J. Finsterbusch, Detection of microscopic diffusion anisotropy on a whole-body MR system with double wave vector imaging, Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 66, 1405 (2011)

    2011

  79. [87]

    Lawrenz and J

    M. Lawrenz and J. Finsterbusch, Double-wave-vector diffusion-weighted imaging reveals micro- scopic diffusion anisotropy in the living human brain, Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 69, 1072 (2013). 66

    2013

  80. [88]

    Lawrenz, S

    M. Lawrenz, S. Brassen, and J. Finsterbusch, Microscopic diffusion anisotropy in the human brain: Reproducibility, normal values, and comparison with the fractional anisotropy, NeuroImage 109, 283 (2015)

    2015

  81. [89]

    Lawrenz, S

    M. Lawrenz, S. Brassen, and J. Finsterbusch, Microscopic diffusion anisotropy in the human brain: Age-related changes, NeuroImage 141, 313 (2016)

    2016

  82. [90]

    Lawrenz and J

    M. Lawrenz and J. Finsterbusch, Detection of microscopic diffusion anisotropy in human cortical gray matter in vivo with double diffusion encoding , Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 81, 1296 (2019)

    2019

  83. [91]

    S. N. Jespersen, H. Lundell, C. K. Snderby, and T. B. Dyrby, Orientationally invariant metrics of apparent compartment eccentricity from double pulsed field gradient diffusion experiments, NMR in Biomedicine 26, 1647 (2013)

    2013

  84. [92]

    J. a. P . de Almeida Martins and D. Topgaard, Two-Dimensional Correlation of Isotropic and Directional Diffusion Using NMR, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 087601 (2016)

    2016

  85. [93]

    P . T. Callaghan and D. N. Pinder, Influence of polydispersity on polymer self-diffusion measure- ments by pulsed field gradient nuclear magnetic resonance, Macromolecules 18, 373 (1985)

    1985

  86. [94]

    J. H. Jensen and J. A. Helpern, MRI quantification of non-Gaussian water diffusion by kurtosis analysis, NMR in Biomedicine 23, 698 (2010)

    2010

  87. [95]

    Rding et al., The gamma distribution model for pulsed-field gradient NMR studies of molecular- weight distributions of polymers, Journal of magnetic resonance 222, 105111 (2012)

    M. Rding et al., The gamma distribution model for pulsed-field gradient NMR studies of molecular- weight distributions of polymers, Journal of magnetic resonance 222, 105111 (2012)

    2012

  88. [96]

    Rding, N

    M. Rding, N. H. Williamson, and M. Nydn, Gamma convolution models for self-diffusion coef- ficient distributions in PGSE NMR, Journal of Magnetic Resonance 261, 6 (2015)

    2015

  89. [97]

    N. H. Williamson, M. Nydn, and M. Rding, The lognormal and gamma distribution models for estimating molecular weight distributions of polymers using PGSE NMR , Journal of Magnetic Resonance 267, 54 (2016)

    2016

  90. [98]

    Reisert, E

    M. Reisert, E. Kellner, B. Dhital, J. Hennig, and V . G. Kiselev, Disentangling micro from mesostructure by diffusion MRI: A Bayesian approach, NeuroImage 147, 964 (2017)

    2017

  91. [99]

    Coelho, J

    S. Coelho, J. M. Pozo, S. N. Jespersen, D. K. Jones, and A. F. Frangi, Resolving degeneracy in diffusion MRI biophysical model parameter estimation using double diffusion encoding , Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 82, 395 (2019)

    2019

  92. [100]

    Coelho, J

    S. Coelho, J. M. Pozo, S. N. Jespersen, and A. F. Frangi, Optimal experimental design for bio- physical modelling in multidimensional diffusion MRI, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1907.06139 (2019), 1907.06139. 67

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.