Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32663798›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage. Clinical2020

Multiple sclerosis cortical and WM lesion segmentation at 3T MRI: a deep learning method based on FLAIR and MP2RAGE.

Francesco La Rosa, Ahmed Abdulkadir, Mário João Fartaria, Reza Rahmanzadeh, Po-Jui Lu, Riccardo Galbusera, Muhamed Barakovic, Jean-Philippe Thiran, Cristina Granziera, Merixtell Bach Cuadra

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage. Clinical, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing 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

66 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. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Francesco La RosaSignal Processing Laboratory (LTS5), École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland; Medical Image Analysis Laboratory, Center for Biomedical Imaging (CIBM), University of Lausanne, Switzerland; Department of Radiology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland. Electronic address: francesco.larosa@epfl.ch.
Ahmed AbdulkadirUniversity Hospital of Old Age Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Center for Biomedical Image Computing and Analytics at the Department of Radiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Mário João FartariaSignal Processing Laboratory (LTS5), École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland; Department of Radiology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland; Advanced Clinical Imaging Technology, Siemens Healthcare AG, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Reza RahmanzadehTranslational Imaging in Neurology Basel, Department of Medicine and Biomedical Engineering, University Hospital Basel and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland; Neurologic Clinic and Policlinic, Departments of Medicine, University Hospital Basel and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Po-Jui LuTranslational Imaging in Neurology Basel, Department of Medicine and Biomedical Engineering, University Hospital Basel and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland; Neurologic Clinic and Policlinic, Departments of Medicine, University Hospital Basel and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Riccardo GalbuseraTranslational Imaging in Neurology Basel, Department of Medicine and Biomedical Engineering, University Hospital Basel and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland; Neurologic Clinic and Policlinic, Departments of Medicine, University Hospital Basel and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Muhamed BarakovicTranslational Imaging in Neurology Basel, Department of Medicine and Biomedical Engineering, University Hospital Basel and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland; Neurologic Clinic and Policlinic, Departments of Medicine, University Hospital Basel and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Jean-Philippe ThiranSignal Processing Laboratory (LTS5), École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland; Department of Radiology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland.
Cristina GranzieraTranslational Imaging in Neurology Basel, Department of Medicine and Biomedical Engineering, University Hospital Basel and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland; Neurologic Clinic and Policlinic, Departments of Medicine, University Hospital Basel and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Merixtell Bach CuadraSignal Processing Laboratory (LTS5), École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland; Medical Image Analysis Laboratory, Center for Biomedical Imaging (CIBM), University of Lausanne, Switzerland; Department of Radiology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The presence of cortical lesions in multiple sclerosis patients has emerged as an important biomarker of the disease. They appear in the earliest stages of the illness and have been shown to correlate with the severity of clinical symptoms. However, cortical lesions are hardly visible in conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at 3T, and thus their automated detection has been so far little explored. In this study, we propose a fully-convolutional deep learning approach, based on the 3D U-Net, for the automated segmentation of cortical and white matter lesions at 3T. For this purpose, we consider a clinically plausible MRI setting consisting of two MRI contrasts only: one conventional T2-weighted sequence (FLAIR), and one specialized T1-weighted sequence (MP2RAGE). We include 90 patients from two different centers with a total of 728 and 3856 gray and white matter lesions, respectively. We show that two reference methods developed for white matter lesion segmentation are inadequate to detect small cortical lesions, whereas our proposed framework is able to achieve a detection rate of 76% for both cortical and white matter lesions with a false positive rate of 29% in comparison to manual segmentation. Further results suggest that our framework generalizes well for both types of lesion in subjects acquired in two hospitals with different scanners.

Indexed as

Deep LearningMultiple SclerosisWhite MatterContrast MediaHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingContrast MediaCNNCortical lesionsFLAIRMP2RAGEMRIMultiple sclerosisSegmentationU-Net

Identifiers

PMID32663798
PMCPMC7358270

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.