Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27197988›Full record

ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2016

Manual Segmentation of MS Cortical Lesions Using MRI: A Comparison of 3 MRI Reading Protocols.

J Maranzano, D A Rudko, D L Arnold, S Narayanan

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Improved Assessment of Juxtacortical Lesions in Multiple Sclerosis Using Highly-accelerated High-resolution Double Inversion Recovery MR Imaging with Deep Learning-based Reconstruction.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. 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

4 authors.

J MaranzanoFrom the Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Montreal Neurological Hospital and Institute, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9696-5522
D A RudkoFrom the Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Montreal Neurological Hospital and Institute, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1299-954X
D L ArnoldFrom the Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Montreal Neurological Hospital and Institute, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0805-7672
S NarayananFrom the Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Montreal Neurological Hospital and Institute, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. sridar.narayanan@mcgill.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-6283-150X

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeDouble inversion recovery has been suggested as the MR imaging contrast of choice for segmenting cortical lesions in patients with multiple sclerosis. In this study, we sought to determine the utility of double inversion recovery for cortical lesion identification by comparing 3 MR imaging reading protocols that combine different MR imaging contrasts. MATERIALS AND

methodsTwenty-five patients with relapsing-remitting MS and 3 with secondary-progressive MS were imaged with 3T MR imaging by using double inversion recovery, dual fast spin-echo proton-density/T2-weighted, 3D FLAIR, and 3D T1-weighted imaging sequences. Lesions affecting the cortex were manually segmented by using the following 3 MR imaging reading protocols: Protocol 1 (P1) used all available MR imaging contrasts; protocol 2 (P2) used all the available contrasts except for double inversion recovery; and protocol 3(P3) used only double inversion recovery.

resultsSix hundred forty-three cortical lesions were identified with P1 (mean = 22.96); 633, with P2 (mean = 22.6); and 280, with P3 (mean = 10). The counts obtained by using P1 and P2 were not significantly different (P = .93). The counts obtained by using P3 were significantly smaller than those obtained by using either P1 (P < .001) or P2 (P < .001). The intraclass correlation coefficients were P1 versus P2 = 0.989, P1 versus P3 = 0.615, and P2 versus P3 = 0.588.

conclusionsMR imaging cortical lesion segmentation can be performed by using 3D T1-weighted and 3D FLAIR images acquired with a 1-mm isotropic voxel size, supported by conventional T2-weighted and proton-density images with 3-mm-thick sections. Inclusion of double inversion recovery in this multimodal reading protocol did not significantly improve the cortical lesion identification rate. A multimodal approach is superior to using double inversion recovery alone.

Indexed as

AdultFemaleHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedImaging, Three-DimensionalMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedMultiple Sclerosis

Identifiers

PMID27197988
PMCPMC7984679

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.