Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26740917›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage. Clinical2015

Quantifying brain tissue volume in multiple sclerosis with automated lesion segmentation and filling.

Sergi Valverde, Arnau Oliver, Eloy Roura, Deborah Pareto, Joan C Vilanova, Lluís Ramió-Torrentà, Jaume Sastre-Garriga, Xavier Montalban, Àlex Rovira, Xavier Lladó

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 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
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

10 authors.

Sergi ValverdeDept. of Computer Architecture and Technology, University of Girona, Spain.
Arnau OliverDept. of Computer Architecture and Technology, University of Girona, Spain.
Eloy RouraDept. of Computer Architecture and Technology, University of Girona, Spain.
Deborah ParetoMagnetic Resonance Unit, Dept. of Radiology, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Spain Architecture and Technology, University of Girona, Spain.
Joan C VilanovaGirona Magnetic Resonance Center, Spain.
Lluís Ramió-TorrentàMultiple Sclerosis and Neuro-immunology Unit, Dr. Josep Trueta University Hospital, Spain.
Jaume Sastre-GarrigaNeurology Unit, Multiple Sclerosis Centre of Catalonia (Cemcat), Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Spain.
Xavier MontalbanNeurology Unit, Multiple Sclerosis Centre of Catalonia (Cemcat), Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Spain.
Àlex RoviraMagnetic Resonance Unit, Dept. of Radiology, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Spain Architecture and Technology, University of Girona, Spain.
Xavier LladóDept. of Computer Architecture and Technology, University of Girona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lesion filling has been successfully applied to reduce the effect of hypo-intense T1-w Multiple Sclerosis (MS) lesions on automatic brain tissue segmentation. However, a study of fully automated pipelines incorporating lesion segmentation and lesion filling on tissue volume analysis has not yet been performed. Here, we analyzed the % of error introduced by automating the lesion segmentation and filling processes in the tissue segmentation of 70 clinically isolated syndrome patient images. First of all, images were processed using the LST and SLS toolkits with different pipeline combinations that differed in either automated or manual lesion segmentation, and lesion filling or masking out lesions. Then, images processed following each of the pipelines were segmented into gray matter (GM) and white matter (WM) using SPM8, and compared with the same images where expert lesion annotations were filled before segmentation. Our results showed that fully automated lesion segmentation and filling pipelines reduced significantly the % of error in GM and WM volume on images of MS patients, and performed similarly to the images where expert lesion annotations were masked before segmentation. In all the pipelines, the amount of misclassified lesion voxels was the main cause in the observed error in GM and WM volume. However, the % of error was significantly lower when automatically estimated lesions were filled and not masked before segmentation. These results are relevant and suggest that LST and SLS toolboxes allow the performance of accurate brain tissue volume measurements without any kind of manual intervention, which can be convenient not only in terms of time and economic costs, but also to avoid the inherent intra/inter variability between manual annotations.

Indexed as

Pattern Recognition, AutomatedBrainGray MatterHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMultiple SclerosisReproducibility of ResultsWhite MatterAutomated tissue segmentationBrainBrain atrophyLesion fillingMRIMultiple sclerosisWhite matter lesions

Identifiers

PMID26740917
PMCPMC4644250

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.