Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25610795›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage. Clinical2015

Classification algorithms with multi-modal data fusion could accurately distinguish neuromyelitis optica from multiple sclerosis.

Arman Eshaghi, Sadjad Riyahi-Alam, Roghayyeh Saeedi, Tina Roostaei, Arash Nazeri, Aida Aghsaei, Rozita Doosti, Habib Ganjgahi, Benedetta Bodini, Ali Shakourirad and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage. Clinical, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Cortical topological network changes following optic neuritis.Neurology(R) neuroimmunology & neuroinflammation · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Arman EshaghiMS Research Center, Neuroscience Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran ; Advanced Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology Research Center (ADIR), Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Sadjad Riyahi-AlamMS Research Center, Neuroscience Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Roghayyeh SaeediMS Research Center, Neuroscience Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Tina RoostaeiMS Research Center, Neuroscience Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran ; Interdisciplinary Neuroscience Research Program, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Arash NazeriMS Research Center, Neuroscience Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran ; Interdisciplinary Neuroscience Research Program, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Aida AghsaeiMS Research Center, Neuroscience Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Rozita DoostiMS Research Center, Neuroscience Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Habib GanjgahiNational Brain Mapping Center, Department of Neurology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Benedetta BodiniCentre de Recherche de l'Institut du Cerveau et de la Moelle Pinire, Universitat Pierre et Marie Curie, Inserm, Paris U975, France.
Ali ShakouriradDepartment of Radiology, Sina Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran ; Iranian Center of Neurological Research, Neuroscience Institute, University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Manijeh PakravanAdvanced Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology Research Center (ADIR), Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Hossein Ghana'atiAdvanced Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology Research Center (ADIR), Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Kavous FirouzniaAdvanced Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology Research Center (ADIR), Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mojtaba ZareiNational Brain Mapping Center, Department of Neurology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Amir Reza AzimiMS Research Center, Neuroscience Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mohammad Ali SahraianMS Research Center, Neuroscience Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran ; Department of Radiology, Sina Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran ; Iranian Center of Neurological Research, Neuroscience Institute, University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neuromyelitis optica (NMO) exhibits substantial similarities to multiple sclerosis (MS) in clinical manifestations and imaging results and has long been considered a variant of MS. With the advent of a specific biomarker in NMO, known as anti-aquaporin 4, this assumption has changed; however, the differential diagnosis remains challenging and it is still not clear whether a combination of neuroimaging and clinical data could be used to aid clinical decision-making. Computer-aided diagnosis is a rapidly evolving process that holds great promise to facilitate objective differential diagnoses of disorders that show similar presentations. In this study, we aimed to use a powerful method for multi-modal data fusion, known as a multi-kernel learning and performed automatic diagnosis of subjects. We included 30 patients with NMO, 25 patients with MS and 35 healthy volunteers and performed multi-modal imaging with T1-weighted high resolution scans, diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and resting-state functional MRI (fMRI). In addition, subjects underwent clinical examinations and cognitive assessments. We included 18 a priori predictors from neuroimaging, clinical and cognitive measures in the initial model. We used 10-fold cross-validation to learn the importance of each modality, train and finally test the model performance. The mean accuracy in differentiating between MS and NMO was 88%, where visible white matter lesion load, normal appearing white matter (DTI) and functional connectivity had the most important contributions to the final classification. In a multi-class classification problem we distinguished between all of 3 groups (MS, NMO and healthy controls) with an average accuracy of 84%. In this classification, visible white matter lesion load, functional connectivity, and cognitive scores were the 3 most important modalities. Our work provides preliminary evidence that computational tools can be used to help make an objective differential diagnosis of NMO and MS.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAdultDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMultiple SclerosisNeuromyelitis OpticaComputational diagnosisDifferential diagnosisMulti-modal imagingMultiple sclerosisNeuromyelitis optica

Identifiers

PMID25610795
PMCPMC4297886

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.