Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging (dMRI) plays a critical role in studying microstructural changes in the brain. It is, therefore, widely used in clinical practice; yet progress in learning general-purpose representations from dMRI has been limited. A key challenge is that existing deep learning approaches are not well-suited to capture the unique properties of diffusion signals. Brain dMRI is normally composed of several brain volumes, each with different attenuation characteristics dependent on the direction and strength of the diffusion-sensitized gradients. Thus, there is a need to jointly model spatial, diffusion-weighting, and directional dependencies in dMRI. Furthermore, varying acquisition protocols (e.g., differing numbers of directions) further limit traditional models. To address these gaps, we introduce a diffusion space rotatory positional embedding (D-RoPE) plugged into our dMRI transformer to capture both the spatial structure and directional characteristics of diffusion data, enabling robust and transferable representations across diverse acquisition settings and an arbitrary number of diffusion directions. After self-supervised masked autoencoding pretraining, tests on several downstream tasks show that the learned representations and the pretrained model can provide competitive or superior performance compared to several baselines in these downstream tasks (even compared to a fully trained baseline); the finetuned features from our pretrained encoder resulted in a 6% higher accuracy in classifying mild cognitive impairment and a 0.05 increase in the correlation coefficient when predicting cognitive scores. Code is available at: github.com/gustavochau/D-RoPE.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of dMRI data structure and model input. The purple sphere represents diffusion sampling directions at a specific b-value. 3D dMRI volumes acquired at different directions are divided into 3D patches. Spatial coordinates (x,y,z) define the image domain and spherical coordinates (ρ,θ,φ) describe the diffusion space. Patches are linearized with absolute positional embeddings and processed by a transformer encoder incorporating relative positional encoding (D-RoPE; see Section 3.1 and Fig. 3 ).
Figure 2: Summary of the model architecture. The different diffusion volumes are patchified via a projection layer and the absolute positional information of the image space and the diffusion space is added to the the patch embeddings. The tokens are passed through modified attention blocks that alternate attention in both image and diffusion spaces. Additionally, relative information of different diffusion directions and b-values is encoded via D-RoPE. The obtained latent representations from the encoder are used for downstream task evaluation. To close the pretraining loop, some tokens are masked and fed into transformer blocks as the ones used in the encoder, followed by 3D convolutional blocks to reconstruct the original volumes.
Figure 3: Attention calculation with D-RoPE: The relative rotation matrix depends on the distance between diffusion volumes, which is defined as a weighted combination of the distance between b-values and the angle between b-vectors.
Figure 4: Qualitative evaluation of the reconstructions for a test subject for a b-value of 2000 s2/mm . The reconstruction obtained with different masking strategies (Spatial, Diffusion, and Alternating) and with and without D-RoPE are shown in the three left-most columns. The reference ground-truth image and the spatial mask that was used are shown in the two right-most columns (white=masked). In general, a good reconstruction of the brain structures are observed. The MAE without D-RoPE case shows an erroneous contrast when only diffusion space masking is performed, possibly because of the lack of spatial information for a given diffusion direction.
Method
Masking
PSNR ( ↑ )
SSIM ( ↑ )
FID ( ↓ )
b-value = 1000 s2/mm
MAE
Spatial
14.54 ± 0.16
0.971 ± 0.003
13.37
MAE
Diffusion
10.13 ± 0.26
0.875 ± 0.005
39.76
MAE
Alternating
14.70 ± 0.17
0.971 ± 0.004
11.13
MAE w/D-RoPE
Spatial
14.84 ± 0.17
0.973 ± 0.003
10.28
MAE w/D-RoPE
Diffusion
14.86 ± 0.17
0.974 ± 0.003
10.73
MAE w/D-RoPE
Alternating
14.94 ± 0.17
0.974 ± 0.003
8.36
Table 1: Quantitative evaluation of the reconstructions obtained from different masking strategies (Spatial, Diffusion, and Alternating) and with and without D-RoPE in the test set of HCP-YA. The mean ± standard deviation is shown for Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio (PSNR) and Structural Similarity Index Measure (SSIM). The value of the Fréchet Inception distance (FID) is shown in the last column. ↑ : the higher, the better; ↓ : the lower, the better. The best results per b-value are highlighted in bold.
Method
Masking
FA error ( ↓ )
MD error x 103 ( ↓ )
MAE
Spatial
0.074 ± 0.013
0.098 ± 0.009
MAE
Diffusion
0.185 ± 0.012
0.233 ± 0.015
MAE
Alternating
0.080 ± 0.013
0.109 ± 0.008
MAE w/D-RoPE
Spatial
0.061 ± 0.007
0.104 ± 0.008
MAE w/D-RoPE
Diffusion
0.058 ± 0.007
0.099 ± 0.008
MAE w/D-RoPE
Alternating
0.055 ± 0.007
0.103 ± 0.008
Table 2: Evaluation of fractional anisotropy (FA) and mean diffusivity (MD) obtained from the reconstructions with and without D-RoPE in HCP-YA. For MD, the x1000 error is shown. The mean ± standard deviation of the absolute error is shown. ↓ : the lower, the better. The best results are highlighted in bold.
Age prediction
Sex classification
Method
Features
Prediction Head
Supervision
ρ ( ↑ )
MSE ( ↓ )
ACC ( ↑ )
AUROC ( ↑ )
HC Features
Tract FA, MD
Linear
Full
0.90 ± 0.01
0.20 ± 0.01
70.90 ± 2.60 %
0.77 ± 0.02
HC Features
Tract FA, MD
MLP
Full
0.90 ± 0.01
0.19 ± 0.02
56.90 ± 2.50 %
0.59 ± 0.03
HC Features
Tract based RISH
MLP
Full
0.61 ± 0.21
1.15 ± 1.24
61.70 ± 2.00 %
0.67 ± 0.03
3D ResNet
FA and MD maps
MLP
Full
0.96 ± 0.01
0.09 ± 0.02
76.00 ± 1.20 %
0.83 ± 0.04
ViT w/RoPE
FA and MD maps
MLP
Full
0.93 ± 0.01
0 .15 ± 0.02
65.40 ± 3.70 %
0.72 ± 0.04
Table 3: Evaluation of different methods (handcrafted features, 3D ResNet, ViT, and our partially supervised methods) on the age prediction and sex classification tasks in HCP-A and HCP-D. For age prediction, the correlation coefficient ( ρ ) and mean square error (MSE) are reported. For sex classification, accuracy (ACC) and area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) are reported. ↑ : the higher, the better, ↓ : the lower, the better. The best result per metric is highlighted in bold, and the second best is underlined. Our proposed methods are highlighted in yellow. *HC Features means Hand-Crafted Features.
CN vs MCI classification
ADAS prediction
Method
Features
Prediction Head
Supervision
BA ( ↑ )
AUPRC ( ↑ )
AUROC ( ↑ )
ρ ( ↑ )
MSE ( ↓ )
HC Features
Tract FA, MD
Linear
Full
6 1.90 ± 7.30 %
0.53 ± 0.06
0.69 ± 0.06
0.06 ± 0.15
10.92 ± 4.08
HC Features
Tract FA, MD
MLP
Full
57.40 ± 5.40 %
0.44 ± 0.09
0.62 ± 0.04
0 .33 ± 0.09
0 .81 ± 0.13
HC Features
Tract based RISH
MLP
Full
53.90 ± 9.60 %
0.31 ± 0.07
0.52 ± 0.08
0.28 ± 0.14
0.93 ± 0.18
3D ResNet
FA and MD maps
MLP
Full
58.40 ± 8.30 %
0 .50 ± 0.10
0 .68 ± 0.08
0 .33 ± 0.08
0.86 ± 0.14
ViT w/RoPE
FA and MD maps
MLP
Full
58.10 ± 6.60 %
0.47 ± 0.08
0.65 ± 0.06
0.25 ± 0.12
0.93 ± 0.15
Table 4: Evaluation of different methods (handcrafted features, 3D ResNet, ViT, and our partially supervised methods) on the CN vs MCI classification and ADAS prediction tasks in ADNI. For CN vs MCI, balance accuracy (BA), area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), and area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) are reported. For ADAS prediction, the correlation coefficient ( ρ ) and mean square error (MSE) are reported. ↓ : the lower, the better. ↓ : the lower, the better. The best result per metric is highlighted in bold, and the second best is underlined. Our proposed methods are highlighted in yellow. *HC Features means Hand-Crafted Features.
Hyperparameter
Value
Number of transformer encoding Layers
10
Number of transformer decoding Layers
3
Number of convolutional decoding Layers
3
Latent dimension
384
Number of heads
3
Convolutional kernel size
3
Table 5: Parameters using for the pre-training stage of the MAE.
Task
hyperparameter
Age prediction
Sex Classification
MCI classification
ADAS prediction
optimizer
AdamW
AdamW
AdamW
AdamW
optimizer momentum
β1=0.9 , β2=0.999
β1=0.9 , β2=0.999
β1=0.9 , β2=0.999
β1=0.9 , β2=0.999
learning rate schedule
Constant
cosine
Constant
cosine
start learning rate
5.00E-05
1.00E-05
5.00E-05
5.00E-05
final learning rate
5.00E-05
1.00E-06
5.00E-05
1.00E-06
Table 6: Parameters using for the partial finetuning of the MAE in different downstream tasks.
Figure 5: Qualitative evaluation of the reconstructions for a test subject for a b-value of 1000 s2/mm . The reconstruction obtained from different masking strategies (Spatial, Diffusion and Alternating) and with and without D-RoPE are shown in the three left-most columns. The reference ground-truth image and the spatial mask that was used are shown in the two right-most columns.
Figure 6: Qualitative evaluation of the reconstructions for a test subject for a b-value of 3000 s2/mm . The reconstruction obtained from different masking strategies (Spatial, Diffusion and Alternating) and with and without D-RoPE are shown in the three left-most columns. The reference ground-truth image and the spatial mask that was used are shown in the two right-most columns.
Age prediction
Sex classification
Trained on
Tested on
ρ ( ↑ )
MSE ( ↓ )
ACC ( ↑ )
AUROC ( ↑ )
Protocol 1
Protocol 1
0.895 ± 0.010
0.22 ± 0.02
75.0 ± 1.2 %
0.827 ± 0.015
Protocol 1
Protocol 2
0.897 ± 0.007
0.21 ± 0.02
75.4 ± 2.0 %
0.828 ± 0.017
Table 7: Comparison of linear probing on top of latent representations trained on protocol 1 and tested on this and a second different protocol. Minimal changes in performance are observed.
Figure 7: Linear probing performance of the frozen latents with different patch sizes (Top) and at different stages of pretraining (Bottom). A clear performance improvement in all downstream tasks is observed as one goes to smaller patch sizes. The optimal number of pretraining epochs seems to vary depending on the downstream task.
Figure 8: Two dimensional UMAP projections for the HCP-A samples colored by sex on the left and combined HCP-A and HCP-D samples colore by age on the right. We observed a structure of the latent space in which female subjects appear to be concentrated towards the lower part of the manifold, and in which there is a gradient from younger to older subjects going upwards in the manifold.
Diffusion MRI (dMRI) probes water diffusion within the brain, providing unique information about tissue microstructure and white matter connectivity. High-quality dMRI enables advanced and accurate analyses but demands dense acquisitions, resulting in long scan times and hardware constraints that are often infeasible. Further, dMRI requires dedicated computational methods to support diverse analysis tasks (e.g., parcellation, registration, and synthesis) for both neuroscientific and clinical applications. Here, we present dMRI-F, a foundation model that unifies dMRI data enhancement and downstream tasks across diverse acquisitions and populations, while requiring only minimal acquisition input. dMRI-F is pre-trained with a q-space masked reconstruction task: predicting densely sampled multi-shell data from only six volumes. It learns generalizable latent feature representations of dMRI data, which serve as a core foundation for adapting to diverse downstream tasks, including brain parcellation, brain registration, and cross-modal synthesis. Across nine independently acquired datasets, we demonstrate that dMRI-F outperforms state-of-the-art methods with robust generalization across acquisitions, populations, and tasks. Our results demonstrate dMRI-F's versatility as a general-purpose framework that enables diverse dMRI applications from low-cost, sparse acquisitions.
Xi Zhu, Yijie Li, Xiaofan Wang +4
University of Electronic Science and Technology of China.
Machine learning (ML) has emerged as a promising approach for improving diffusion MRI (dMRI) tractography, a task that remains limited by the intrinsic tension between local diffusion information and global anatomical plausibility. In this work, we systematically evaluate recurrent neural networks (RNNs) and Transformer models for iterative tractography, with particular attention to training strategies, input representations (including convolutional neural network (CNN)-based embeddings and end-of-sequence (EOS) tokens), and hyperparameter selection. We introduce a generation-validation phase enabling supervision at the streamline level during training, allowing supervision despite the mismatch between local loss functions and global streamline quality. Using the ISMRM2015 tractography challenge dataset, our models achieve the highest reported performance to date. Through controlled experiments, we quantify the impact of missing bundles, noisy or imperfect training streamlines, and invalid fibers in the training set. Finally, we demonstrate the applicability of our best-performing models for in vivo data from the Tractoinferno database. Overall, our results highlight both the potential and the limits of sequence-based deep learning models such as Transformers and RNNs for tractography, and emphasize the need for improved phantoms and evaluation methods for in vivo validation. We provide takeaways and recommendations for future researchers training and validating sequence-based supervised methods for tractography.
Emmanuelle Renauld, Philippe Poulin, Hugo Larochelle +2
Computer Sciences Department, Université de Sherbrooke · Mila, Université de Montréal · Imeka Solutions Inc, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada
Purpose: To develop a data-efficient strategy for accelerated MRI reconstruction with Diffusion Probabilistic Generative Models (DPMs) that enables faster scan times in clinical stroke MRI when only limited fully-sampled data samples are available. Methods: Our simple training strategy, inspired by the foundation model paradigm, first trains a DPM on a large, diverse collection of publicly available brain MRI data in fastMRI and then fine-tunes on a small dataset from the target application using carefully selected learning rates and fine-tuning durations. The approach is evaluated on controlled fastMRI experiments and on clinical stroke MRI data with a blinded clinical reader study. Results: DPMs pre-trained on approximately 4000 subjects with non-FLAIR contrasts and fine-tuned on FLAIR data from only 20 target subjects achieve reconstruction performance comparable to models trained with substantially more target-domain FLAIR data across multiple acceleration factors. Experiments reveal that moderate fine-tuning with a reduced learning rate yields improved performance, while insufficient or excessive fine-tuning degrades reconstruction quality. When applied to clinical stroke MRI, a blinded reader study involving two neuroradiologists indicates that images reconstructed using the proposed approach from 2× accelerated data are non-inferior to standard-of-care in terms of image quality and structural delineation. Conclusion: Large-scale pre-training combined with targeted fine-tuning enables DPM-based MRI reconstruction in data-constrained, accelerated clinical stroke MRI. The proposed approach substantially reduces the need for large application-specific datasets while maintaining clinically acceptable image quality, supporting the use of foundation-inspired diffusion models for accelerated MRI in targeted applications.
Yamin Arefeen, Sidharth Kumar, Steven Warach +2
Chandra Family Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering The University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX, USA · Department of Imaging Physics MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston, TX, USA · Dell Medical School Department of Neurology The University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX, USA +3