ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Neuroimaging
Sec. Brain Imaging Methods
Diffusion MRI Sampling Schemes Bias Diffusion Metrics and Tractography
Provisionally accepted- 1Department of Brain Connectivity and Plasticity, D'Or Institute for Research and Education, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
- 2IRC5 – International Research Consortium for the Corpus Callosum and Cerebral Connectivity, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
- 3Neurobiology Department, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, United States
- 4Department of Neuroscience, Washington University in St Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, United States
- 5California Institute of Technology Division of Humanities and Social Sciences, Pasadena, United States
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Diffusion MRI is increasingly used to study white-matter architecture, but tractography and diffusion metrics can be biased by different sampling schemes. We assessed systematic differences across four common protocols – single-shell high-angular resolution diffusion imaging (HARDI), Siemens clinical multi-shell (Sms), diffusion spectrum imaging (DSI), and Human Connectome Project multi-shell (HCPms) – in healthy adults and individuals with corpus callosum dysgenesis (CCD). All data were acquired on a single 3T scanner and processed uniformly to extract fractional anisotropy (FA), mean diffusivity (MD), effective contrast-to-noise ratio (eCNR), and orientation dispersion within the corpus callosum (CC), corona radiata (CR), and centrum semiovale (CSO). In controls, we measured tract volumes for CC, bilateral CR, anterior commissure (AC) and posterior commissure (PC), and streamline counts for AC and PC; in CCD, we quantified volumes of the Probst and sigmoid bundles. Across participants, FA and MD showed moderate cross-scheme correlations for most ROIs, but matched means were rare (only Sms–HARDI in CC). eCNR and dispersion exhibited few cross-scheme correlations; however, means were similar for eCNR between Sms and HCPms and for dispersion among HARDI, DSI, and HCPms. Tract-based volumes correlated across Sms, DSI, and HCPms for CC in controls and for the right sigmoid and both Probst bundles in CCD. DSI and HCPms yielded similar volumes in all ROIs (controls and CCD). In controls, Sms volumes agreed with DSI/HCPms in CR, but were lower in CC and in all CCD ROIs. HARDI produced higher volumes in CC and bilateral CR in controls and in all CCD ROIs. For AC and PC in controls, tract-based means (volumes, streamlines, streamlines/volume) were consistent across schemes; nonetheless, correlations were limited – streamlines and streamlines/volume correlated for Sms, DSI, and HARDI in AC, and for DSI and HCPms in PC. These findings demonstrate systematic differences in voxel-wise metrics and tractography outcomes from four diffusion-sampling schemes. In addition to qualitatively informing attempts to consolidate or contrast data across schemes, future work could explore regression-based harmonization – and other methods – to reduce residual bias and enable pooled analyses across diverse protocols.
Keywords: Anomalous white-matter bundles, Corpus callosum dysgenesis, diffusion metrics, diffusion MRI, harmonization, tractography
Received: 21 Jul 2025; Accepted: 09 Feb 2026.
Copyright: © 2026 Bramati, Szczupak, Monteiro, Meireles, Guimarães, Dean, Paul and Tovar-Moll. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Ivanei Edson Bramati
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
