Texture Analysis in Cerebral Gliomas: A Review of the Literature

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   2. Auffinger B,
   3. Thaci B,
   4. Nigam P, et al

   . New therapeutic approaches for malignant glioma: in search of the Rosetta stone. F1000 Med Rep 2012;4:18 doi:10.3410/M4-18 pmid:22991580

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   2. Kang Y,
   3. Choi SH,
   4. Kim YJ, et al

   . Gliomas: histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient maps with standard- or high-b-value diffusion-weighted MR imaging–correlation with tumor grade. Radiology 2011;261:882–90 doi:10.1148/radiol.11110686 pmid:21969667

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   2. Gulsen S

   . Achieving higher diagnostic results in stereotactic brain biopsy by simple and novel technique. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 2015;3:99–104 doi:10.3889/oamjms.2015.016 pmid:27275204

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. Akay A,
   3. Rüksen M,
   4. Islekel S

   . Magnetic resonance imaging-guided stereotactic biopsy: a review of 83 cases with outcomes. Asian J Neurosurg 2019;14:90–95 doi:10.4103/ajns.AJNS_81_17 pmid:30937016

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   2. Mazurowski MA

   . Radiogenomics: what it is and why it is important. J Am Coll Radiol 2015;12:862–66 doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2015.04.019 pmid:26250979

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   2. Law M,
   3. Yang S,
   4. Wang H, et al

   . Glioma grading: sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of perfusion MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging compared with conventional MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003;24:1989–98 pmid:14625221

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
7. 7.↵
   2. Gutman DA,
   3. Cooper LA,
   4. Hwang SN, et al

   . MR imaging predictors of molecular profile and survival: multi-institutional study of the TCGA glioblastoma data set. Radiology 2013;267:560–69 doi:10.1148/radiol.13120118 pmid:23392431

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
8. 8.↵
   2. Naveed MA,
   3. Goyal P,
   4. Malhotra A, et al

   . Grading of oligodendroglial tumors of the brain with apparent diffusion coefficient, magnetic resonance spectroscopy, and dynamic susceptibility contrast imaging. Neuroradiol J 2018;31:379–85 doi:10.1177/1971400918757217 pmid:29469659

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   Texture. Merriam-Webster.com. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/texture. Accessed January 10, 2019.
10. 10.↵
    2. Raja R,
    3. Sinha N,
    4. Saini J, et al

    . Assessment of tissue heterogeneity using diffusion tensor and diffusion kurtosis imaging for grading gliomas. Neuroradiology 2016;58:1217–31 doi:10.1007/s00234-016-1758-y pmid:27796448

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    2. Miles KA,
    3. Ganeshan B,
    4. Hayball MP

    . CT texture analysis using the filtration-histogram method: what do the measurements mean? Cancer Imaging 2013;13:400–06 doi:10.1102/1470-7330.2013.9045 pmid:24061266

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    2. Buch K,
    3. Kuno H,
    4. Qureshi MM, et al

    . Quantitative variations in texture analysis features dependent on MRI scanning parameters: a phantom model. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2018;19:253–64 doi:10.1002/acm2.12482 pmid:30369010

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Mayerhoefer ME,
    3. Szomolanyi P,
    4. Jirak D, et al

    . Effects of MRI acquisition parameter variations and protocol heterogeneity on the results of texture analysis and pattern discrimination: an application-oriented study. Med Phys 2009;36:1236–43 doi:10.1118/1.3081408 pmid:19472631

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. Depeursinge A,
    3. Foncubierta-Rodriguez A,
    4. Van De Ville D, et al

    . Three-dimensional solid texture analysis in biomedical imaging: review and opportunities. Med Image Anal 2014;18:176–96 doi:10.1016/j.media.2013.10.005 pmid:24231667

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Mayerhoefer ME,
    3. Szomolanyi P,
    4. Jirak D, et al

    . Effects of magnetic resonance image interpolation on the results of texture-based pattern classification: a phantom study. Invest Radiol 2009;44:405–11 doi:10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181a50a66 pmid:19465863

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Constantinides C

    2. Larroza A,
    3. Bodí V,
    4. Moratal D

    . Texture analysis in magnetic resonance imaging: review and considerations for future applications. In: Constantinides C, ed. Assessment of Cellular and Organ Function and Dysfunction using Direct and Derived MRI Methodologies. Rijeka: IntechOpen; 2016
17. 17.↵
    1. Depeursinge A,
    2. Al-Kadi OS,
    3. Mitchell JR

    2. Szczypiński PM,
    3. Klepaczko A

    . MaZda: a framework for biomedical image texture analysis and data exploration. In: Depeursinge A, Al-Kadi OS, Mitchell JR, eds. Biomedical Texture Analysis. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2017:315–47
18. 18.↵
    2. Schaer R,
    3. Cid YD,
    4. Alkim E, et al

    . Web-Based Tools for Exploring the Potential of Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers on Radiology. Waltham: Academic Press; 2017
19. 19.↵
    2. Di Cataldo S,
    3. Ficarra E

    . Mining textural knowledge in biological images: applications, methods and trends. Comput Struct Biotechnol J 2017;15:56–67 doi:10.1016/j.csbj.2016.11.002 pmid:27994798

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Kolossváry M,
    3. Kellermayer M,
    4. Merkely B, et al

    . Cardiac computed tomography radiomics: a comprehensive review on radiomic techniques. J Thorac Imaging 2018;33:26–34 doi:10.1097/RTI.0000000000000268 pmid:28346329

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    2. Bashir U,
    3. Siddique MM,
    4. McLean E, et al

    . Imaging heterogeneity in lung cancer: techniques, applications, and challenges. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016;207:534–43 doi:10.2214/AJR.15.15864 pmid:27305342

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Davnall F,
    3. Yip CS,
    4. Ljungqvist G, et al

    . Assessment of tumor heterogeneity: an emerging imaging tool for clinical practice? Insights Imaging 2012;3:573–89 doi:10.1007/s13244-012-0196-6 pmid:23093486

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Lubner MG,
    3. Smith AD,
    4. Sandrasegaran K, et al

    . CT texture analysis: definitions, applications, biologic correlates, and challenges. Radiographics 2017;37:1483–503 doi:10.1148/rg.2017170056 pmid:28898189

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Depeursinge A,
    3. Fageot J,
    4. Al-Kadi OS

    . Fundamentals of texture processing for biomedical image analysis: a general definition and problem formulation. Biomedical Texture Analysis. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2017:1–27
25. 25.↵
    2. Louis DN,
    3. Perry A,
    4. Reifenberger G, et al

    . The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary. Acta Neuropathol 2016;131:803–20 doi:10.1007/s00401-016-1545-1 pmid:27157931

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. Chand P,
    3. Amit S,
    4. Gupta R, et al

    . Errors, limitations, and pitfalls in the diagnosis of central and peripheral nervous system lesions in intraoperative cytology and frozen sections. J Cytol 2016;33:93–97 doi:10.4103/0970-9371.182530 pmid:27279685

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    2. Ryu YJ,
    3. Choi SH,
    4. Park SJ, et al

    . Glioma: application of whole-tumor texture analysis of diffusion-weighted imaging for the evaluation of tumor heterogeneity. PLoS One 2014;9:e108335 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0108335 pmid:25268588

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    2. Kinoshita M,
    3. Sakai M,
    4. Arita H, et al

    . Introduction of high throughput magnetic resonance T2-weighted image texture analysis for WHO grade 2 and 3 gliomas. PLoS One 2016;11:e0164268 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0164268 pmid:27716832

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    2. Skogen K,
    3. Schulz A,
    4. Dormagen JB, et al

    . Diagnostic performance of texture analysis on MRI in grading cerebral gliomas. Eur J Radiol 2016;85:824–29 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.01.013 pmid:26971430

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    2. Tian Q,
    3. Yan LF,
    4. Zhang X, et al

    . Radiomics strategy for glioma grading using texture features from multiparametric MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2018;48:1518–28 doi:10.1002/jmri.26010 pmid:29573085

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    2. Xie T,
    3. Chen X,
    4. Fang J, et al

    . Textural features of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI derived model-free and model-based parameter maps in glioma grading. J Magn Reson Imaging 2018;47:1099–111 doi:10.1002/jmri.25835 pmid:28845594

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    2. Qi XX,
    3. Shi DF,
    4. Ren SX, et al

    . Histogram analysis of diffusion kurtosis imaging derived maps may distinguish between low and high grade gliomas before surgery. Eur Radiol 2018;28:1748–55 doi:10.1007/s00330-017-5108-1 pmid:29143940

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    2. Mazurowski MA,
    3. Zhang J,
    4. Peters KB, et al

    . Computer-extracted MR imaging features are associated with survival in glioblastoma patients. J Neurooncol 2014;120:483–88 doi:10.1007/s11060-014-1580-5 pmid:25151504

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    2. Brynolfsson P,
    3. Nilsson D,
    4. Henriksson R, et al

    . ADC texture: an imaging biomarker for high-grade glioma? Med Phys 2014;41:101903 doi:10.1118/1.4894812 pmid:25281955

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    2. Upadhaya T,
    3. Morvan Y,
    4. Stindel E, et al

    . A framework for multimodal imaging-based prognostic model building: preliminary study on multimodal MRI in glioblastoma multiforme. IRBM 2015;36:345–50 doi:10.1016/j.irbm.2015.08.001

    CrossRef
36. 36.↵
    2. Yang D,
    3. Rao G,
    4. Martinez J, et al

    . Evaluation of tumor-derived MRI-texture features for discrimination of molecular subtypes and prediction of 12-month survival status in glioblastoma. Med Phys 2015;42:6725–35 doi:10.1118/1.4934373 pmid:26520762

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    2. Chaddad A,
    3. Tanougast C

    . Extracted magnetic resonance texture features discriminate between phenotypes and are associated with overall survival in glioblastoma multiforme patients. Med Biol Eng Comput 2016;54:1707–18 doi:10.1007/s11517-016-1461-5 pmid:26960324

    CrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    2. Lee J,
    3. Jain R,
    4. Khalil K, et al

    . Texture feature ratios from relative CBV maps of perfusion MRI are associated with patient survival in glioblastoma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:37–43 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4534 pmid:26471746

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
39. 39.↵
    2. Molina D,
    3. Pérez-Beteta J,
    4. Luque B, et al

    . Tumour heterogeneity in glioblastoma assessed by MRI texture analysis: a potential marker of survival. Br J Radiol 2016;89:20160242 doi:10.1259/bjr.20160242 pmid:27319577

    CrossRefPubMed
40. 40.↵
    2. Kickingereder P,
    3. Burth S,
    4. Wick A, et al

    . Radiomic profiling of glioblastoma: identifying an imaging predictor of patient survival with improved performance over established clinical and radiologic risk models. Radiology 2016;280:880–89 doi:10.1148/radiol.2016160845 pmid:27326665

    CrossRefPubMed
41. 41.↵
    2. Grossmann P,
    3. Narayan V,
    4. Chang K, et al

    . Quantitative imaging biomarkers for risk stratification of patients with recurrent glioblastoma treated with bevacizumab. Neuro Oncol 2017;19:1688–97 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nox092 pmid:28499022

    CrossRefPubMed
42. 42.↵
    2. Chaddad A,
    3. Daniel P,
    4. Desrosiers C, et al

    . Novel radiomic features based on joint intensity matrices for predicting glioblastoma patient survival time. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform 2019;23:795–804 doi:10.1109/JBHI.2018.2825027 pmid:29993848

    CrossRefPubMed
43. 43.↵
    2. Bahrami N,
    3. Piccioni D,
    4. Karunamuni R, et al

    . Edge contrast of the FLAIR hyperintense region predicts survival in patients with high-grade gliomas following treatment with bevacizumab. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39:1017–24 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5620 pmid:29622553

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
44. 44.↵
    2. Liu Y,
    3. Zhang X,
    4. Feng N, et al

    . The effect of glioblastoma heterogeneity on survival stratification: a multimodal MR imaging texture analysis. Acta Radiol 2018;59:1239–46 doi:10.1177/0284185118756951 pmid:29430935

    CrossRefPubMed
45. 45.↵
    2. Combs SE,
    3. Rieken S,
    4. Wick W, et al

    . Prognostic significance of IDH-1 and MGMT in patients with glioblastoma: one step forward, and one step back? Radiat Oncol 2011;6:115 doi:10.1186/1748-717X-6-115 pmid:21910919

    CrossRefPubMed
46. 46.↵
    2. Xia L,
    3. Wu B,
    4. Fu Z, et al

    . Prognostic role of IDH mutations in gliomas: a meta-analysis of 55 observational studies. Oncotarget 2015;6:17354–65 doi:10.18632/oncotarget.4008 pmid:26220714

    CrossRefPubMed
47. 47.↵
    2. Chow D,
    3. Chang P,
    4. Weinberg BD, et al

    . Imaging genetic heterogeneity in glioblastoma and other glial tumors: review of current methods and future directions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2018;210:30–38 doi:10.2214/AJR.17.18754 pmid:28981352

    CrossRefPubMed
48. 48.↵
    2. Zhang X,
    3. Tian Q,
    4. Wu YX, et al

    . IDH mutation assessment of glioma using texture features of multimodal MR images. Proceedings of SPIE 2017;10134 doi:10.1117/12.2254212

    CrossRef
49. 49.↵
    2. Hsieh KL,
    3. Chen CY,
    4. Lo CM

    . Radiomic model for predicting mutations in the isocitrate dehydrogenase gene in glioblastomas. Oncotarget 2017;8:45888–97 doi:10.18632/oncotarget.17585 pmid:28526813

    CrossRefPubMed
50. 50.↵
    2. Eichinger P,
    3. Alberts E,
    4. Delbridge C, et al

    . Diffusion tensor image features predict IDH genotype in newly diagnosed WHO grade II/III gliomas. Sci Rep 2017;7:13396 doi:10.1038/s41598-017-13679-4 pmid:29042619

    CrossRefPubMed
51. 51.↵
    2. Bahrami N,
    3. Hartman SJ,
    4. Chang YH, et al

    . Molecular classification of patients with grade II/III glioma using quantitative MRI characteristics. J Neurooncol 2018;139:633–42 doi:10.1007/s11060-018-2908-3 pmid:29860714

    CrossRefPubMed
52. 52.↵
    2. Shofty B,
    3. Artzi M,
    4. Ben Bashat D, et al

    . MRI radiomics analysis of molecular alterations in low-grade gliomas. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2018;13:563–71 doi:10.1007/s11548-017-1691-5 pmid:29270916

    CrossRefPubMed
53. 53.↵
    2. Jakola AS,
    3. Zhang YH,
    4. Skjulsvik AJ, et al

    . Quantitative texture analysis in the prediction of IDH status in low-grade gliomas. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2018;164:114–20 doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2017.12.007 pmid:29220731

    CrossRefPubMed
54. 54.↵
    2. Rui W,
    3. Ren Y,
    4. Wang Y, et al

    . MR textural analysis on T2 FLAIR images for the prediction of true oligodendroglioma by the 2016 WHO genetic classification. J Magn Reson Imaging 2018;48:74–83 doi:10.1002/jmri.25896 pmid:29140606

    CrossRefPubMed
55. 55.↵
    2. Han L,
    3. Wang S,
    4. Miao Y, et al

    . MRI texture analysis based on 3D tumor measurement reflects the IDH1 mutations in gliomas: a preliminary study. Eur J Radiol 2019;112:169–79 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.01.025 pmid:30777207

    CrossRefPubMed
56. 56.↵
    2. Li Y,
    3. Liu X,
    4. Qian Z, et al

    . Genotype prediction of ATRX mutation in lower-grade gliomas using an MRI radiomics signature. Eur Radiol 2018;28:2960–68 doi:10.1007/s00330-017-5267-0 pmid:29404769

    CrossRefPubMed
57. 57.↵
    2. Li Y,
    3. Liu X,
    4. Xu K, et al

    . MRI features can predict EGFR expression in lower grade gliomas: a voxel-based radiomic analysis. Eur Radiol 2018;28:356–62 doi:10.1007/s00330-017-4964-z pmid:28755054

    CrossRefPubMed
58. 58.↵
    2. Li Y,
    3. Qian Z,
    4. Xu K, et al

    . MRI features predict p53 status in lower-grade gliomas via a machine-learning approach. Neuroimage Clin 2017;17:306–11 doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2017.10.030 pmid:29527478

    CrossRefPubMed
59. 59.↵
    2. Suh HB,
    3. Choi YS,
    4. Bae S, et al

    . Primary central nervous system lymphoma and atypical glioblastoma: differentiation using radiomics approach. Eur Radiol 2018;28:3832–39 doi:10.1007/s00330-018-5368-4 pmid:29626238

    CrossRefPubMed
60. 60.↵
    2. Kunimatsu A,
    3. Kunimatsu N,
    4. Yasaka K, et al

    . Machine learning-based texture analysis of contrast-enhanced MR imaging to differentiate between glioblastoma and primary central nervous system lymphoma. Magn Reson Med Sci 2019;18:44–52 doi:10.2463/mrms.mp.2017-0178 pmid:29769456

    CrossRefPubMed
61. 61.↵
    2. Kunimatsu A,
    3. Kunimatsu N,
    4. Kamiya K, et al

    . Comparison between glioblastoma and primary central nervous system lymphoma using MR image-based texture analysis. Magn Reson Med Sci 2018;17:50–57 doi:10.2463/mrms.mp.2017-0044 pmid:28638001

    CrossRefPubMed
62. 62.↵
    2. Xiao DD,
    3. Yan PF,
    4. Wang YX, et al

    . Glioblastoma and primary central nervous system lymphoma: preoperative differentiation by using MRI-based 3D texture analysis. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2018;173:84–90 doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2018.08.004 pmid:30092408

    CrossRefPubMed
63. 63.↵
    2. Alcaide-Leon P,
    3. Dufort P,
    4. Geraldo AF, et al

    . Differentiation of enhancing glioma and primary central nervous system lymphoma by texture-based machine learning. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:1145–50 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5173 pmid:28450433

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
64. 64.↵
    2. Slotboom J,
    3. Schaer R,
    4. Ozdoba C, et al

    . A novel method for analyzing DSCE-images with an application to tumor grading. Invest Radiol 2008;43:843–53 doi:10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181893605 pmid:19002056

    CrossRefPubMed
65. 65.↵
    2. Verma RK,
    3. Slotboom J,
    4. Heldner MR, et al

    . Characterization of microcirculation in multiple sclerosis lesions by dynamic texture parameter analysis (DTPA). PLoS One 2013;8:e67610 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0067610 pmid:23874432

    CrossRefPubMed
66. 66.↵
    2. Verma RK,
    3. Wiest R,
    4. Locher C, et al

    . Differentiating enhancing multiple sclerosis lesions, glioblastoma, and lymphoma with dynamic texture parameters analysis (DTPA): a feasibility study. Med Phys 2017;44:4000–08 doi:10.1002/mp.12356 pmid:28543071

    CrossRefPubMed
67. 67.↵
    2. Skogen K,
    3. Schulz A,
    4. Helseth E, et al

    . Texture analysis on diffusion tensor imaging: discriminating glioblastoma from single brain metastasis. Acta Radiol 2019;60:356–66 doi:10.1177/0284185118780889 pmid:29860889

    CrossRefPubMed
68. 68.↵
    2. Ismail M,
    3. Hill V,
    4. Statsevych V, et al

    . Shape features of the lesion habitat to differentiate brain tumor progression from pseudoprogression on routine multiparametric MRI: a multisite study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39:2187–93 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5858 pmid:30385468

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
69. 69.↵
    2. Ford J,
    3. Dogan N,
    4. Young L, et al

    . Quantitative radiomics: impact of pulse sequence parameter selection on MRI-based textural features of the brain. Contrast Media Mol Imaging 2018;2018:1729071 doi:10.1155/2018/1729071 pmid:30154684

    CrossRefPubMed
70. 70.↵
    2. Yang F,
    3. Dogan N,
    4. Stoyanova R, et al

    . Evaluation of radiomic texture feature error due to MRI acquisition and reconstruction: a simulation study utilizing ground truth. Phys Med 2018;50:26–36 doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.05.017 pmid:29891091

    CrossRefPubMed
71. 71.↵
    2. Schad LR

    . Problems in texture analysis with magnetic resonance imaging. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 2004;6:235–42 pmid:22034056

    PubMed
72. 72.↵
    2. Waugh SA,
    3. Lerski RA,
    4. Bidaut L, et al

    . The influence of field strength and different clinical breast MRI protocols on the outcome of texture analysis using foam phantoms. Med Phys 2011;38:5058–66 doi:10.1118/1.3622605 pmid:21978050

    CrossRefPubMed
73. 73.↵
    2. Molina D,
    3. Pérez-Beteta J,
    4. Martínez-González A, et al

    . Lack of robustness of textural measures obtained from 3D brain tumor MRIs impose a need for standardization. PLoS One 2017;12:e0178843 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0178843 pmid:28586353

    CrossRefPubMed
74. 74.↵
    2. Collewet G,
    3. Strzelecki M,
    4. Mariette F

    . Influence of MRI acquisition protocols and image intensity normalization methods on texture classification. Magn Reson Imaging 2004;22:81–91 doi:10.1016/j.mri.2003.09.001 pmid:14972397

    CrossRefPubMed
75. 75.↵
    2. Hainc N,
    3. Stippich C,
    4. Stieltjes B, et al

    . Experimental texture analysis in glioblastoma: a methodological study. Invest Radiol 2017;52:367–73 doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000354 pmid:28230716

    CrossRefPubMed
76. 76.↵
    2. Varghese BA,
    3. Cen SY,
    4. Hwang DH, et al

    . Texture analysis of imaging: what radiologists need to know. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2019;212:520–28 doi:10.2214/AJR.18.20624 pmid:30645163

    CrossRefPubMed
77. 77.↵
    2. Suzuki K

    . Overview of deep learning in medical imaging. Radiol Phys Technol 2017;10:257–73 doi:10.1007/s12194-017-0406-5 pmid:28689314

    CrossRefPubMed