[Neuroimaging] [dipy]Fitting diffusion models in the absence of S0 signal

[Rafael Henriques]

Hi Eleftherios,

What can we do if the data don't have b0s?
In the last years, everyone was including the b0 data in their DWI
acquisitions. However, nowadays some groups are starting to acquire
diffusion volume of images with low b-values (e.g. 300 s.mm-2) instead
of the b0 volumes. They are doing this to insure that when fitting
diffusion models they do not take into account Perfusion confounding
effects. So my question is - what can we do to generalize Dipy for
these cases? My suggestion is to include S0 always as model parameter,
so even if users do not have b0 data, the model can easily give the
extrapolated non-perfusion effected S0 signal.

Also, how can you recover the S0 information using the line that you
are suggested? If params only have the diffusion tensor information,
that line will always be equal to 1, right? Am I missing something
here?

Best,
Rafael


> Hi Ariel,
>
> Apologies for delaying to answer.
>
> What I understand is that now the fit_model is doing the prediction for the
> S0. Am I correct?
> You recreate a predicted S0 inside fit_model but fit_model is about fitting
> and not about predicting.
>
> I am not comfortable to changing fit_model to generate two parameters
> (params and S0).
>
> This command can be called inside the predict method
> S0 = np.mean(np.exp(np.dot(dm, params))[..., gtab.b0s_mask])
>
> So, for me there is no reason of changing the init method of TensorFit.
>
> I hope I am not missing something.
> Let me know if this suggestion is helpful.
>
> Cheers,
> Eleftherios
>
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Ariel Rokem <arokem at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Thought I would re-raise this. Anyone have any thoughts here? Would a PR
>> against the DTI and DKI modules be more helpful to clarify?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Ariel
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 3:04 AM, Ariel Rokem <arokem at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Eleftherios Garyfallidis <
>>> garyfallidis at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry your suggestion is not exactly clear. Can you give show us how the
>>>> code will look with your proposal? Also, apart from DTI and DKI what other
>>>> models will be affected from this changes. Is this a change suggested only
>>>> for DTI and DKI or will affect all or most reconstruction models?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> First of all, to answer your last question: this will certainly affect
>>> DTI and DKI, and there will be other models to follow. For example the
>>> FWDTI that Rafael is currently proposing in that PR. The idea would be to
>>> also more tightly integrate these three models (and future extensions...
>>> !), so that we can remove some of the redundancies that currently exist. We
>>> could make this a part of the base.Reconst* methods - it might apply to
>>> other models as well (e.g. CSD, SFM, etc). But that's part of what I would
>>> like to discuss here.
>>>
>>> As for code, for now, here's a sketch of what this would look like for
>>> the tensor model:
>>>
>>> https://gist.github.com/arokem/508dc1b22bdbd0bdd748
>>>
>>> Note that though it changes the prediction API a bit, not much else would
>>> have to change. In particular, all the code that relies on there being 12
>>> model parameters will still be intact, because S0 doesn't go into the model
>>> parameters.
>>>
>>> What do you think? Am I missing something big here? Or should I go ahead
>>> and start working on a PR implementing this?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Ariel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Ariel Rokem <arokem at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>> In Rafael's recent PR implementing free-water-eliminated DTI (
>>>>> https://github.com/nipy/dipy/pull/835), we had a little bit of a
>>>>> discussion about the use of the non-diffusion weighted signal (S0). As
>>>>> pointed out by Rafael, in the absence of an S0 in the measured data, for
>>>>> some models, that can be derived from the model fit (
>>>>> https://github.com/nipy/dipy/pull/835#issuecomment-183060855).
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that we would like to support using data both with and without
>>>>> S0. On the other hand, I don't think that we should treat the derived S0 as
>>>>> a model parameter, because in some cases, we want to provide S0 as an input
>>>>> (for example, when predicting back the signal for another measurement, with
>>>>> a different ). In addition, it would be hard to incorporate that into the
>>>>>  model_params variable of the TensorFit object, while maintaining backwards
>>>>> compatibility of the TensorModel/TensorFit and derived classes (e.g., DKI).
>>>>>
>>>>> My proposal is to have an S0 property for ReconstFit objects. When this
>>>>> is calculated from the model (e.g. in DTI), it gets set by the `fit` method
>>>>> of the ReconstModel object. When it isn't, it can be set from the data.
>>>>> Either way, it can be over-ridden by the user (e.g., for the purpose of
>>>>> predicting on a new data-set). This might change the behavior of the
>>>>> prediction code slightly, but maybe that is something we can live with?
>>>>>
>>>>> Happy to hear what everyone thinks, before we move ahead with this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Ariel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Neuroimaging mailing list
>>>>> Neuroimaging at python.org
>>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/neuroimaging
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Neuroimaging mailing list
>>>> Neuroimaging at python.org
>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/neuroimaging
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Neuroimaging mailing list
>> Neuroimaging at python.org
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/neuroimaging
>>
>>