ArticleBrain : a journal of neurology2020
Histopathology-validated recommendations for cortical lesion imaging in multiple sclerosis.
Article in Brain : a journal of neurology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- Imaging cortical multiple sclerosis lesions with ultra-high field MRI.NeuroImage. Clinical · 2021Pooled it
- Cortical lesions in multiple sclerosis: 25 years of progress, remaining challenges and future directions.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2026Review
- Whole-brain in situ postmortem MR imaging using a combination of sequences for cortical lesion detection in multiple sclerosis.La Radiologia medica · 2026Article
- Paramagnetic Rim Lesions in Highly Active Multiple Sclerosis at the Time of Disease Diagnosis: Prevalence Data and Clinical Implications.European journal of neurology · 2026Article
- Thalamic atrophy in multiple sclerosis is associated with tract disconnection and altered microglia.Acta neuropathologica · 2025Article
- Imaging Outcomes for Phase 2 Trials Targeting Compartmentalized Inflammation.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2024Review
- Predicting multiple sclerosis disease progression and outcomes with machine learning and MRI-based biomarkers: a review.Journal of neurology · 2024Review
- Decoding Gray Matter Involvement in Multiple Sclerosis via Imaging.Neuroimaging clinics of North America · 2024Review
- The cognitive relevance of non-lesional damage to cortical networks in people with multiple sclerosis.Journal of neurology · 2024Article
- Early regional cerebral grey matter damage predicts long-term cognitive impairment phenotypes in multiple sclerosis: a 20-year study.Brain communications · 2024Article
- Postmortem quantitative MRI disentangles histological lesion types in multiple sclerosis.Brain pathology (Zurich, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Emerging imaging and liquid biomarkers in multiple sclerosis.European journal of immunology · 2023Review
- Quantitative myelin imaging with MRI and PET: an overview of techniques and their validation status.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2023Review
- A vision of 14 T MR for fundamental and clinical science.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2023Review
- Multicenter Evaluation of AI-generated DIR and PSIR for Cortical and Juxtacortical Multiple Sclerosis Lesion Detection.Radiology · 2023Article
- Differentiating Multiple Sclerosis From AQP4-Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorder and MOG-Antibody Disease With Imaging.Neurology · 2023Article
- Linking lesions in sensorimotor cortex to contralateral hand function in multiple sclerosis: a 7 T MRI study.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2022Article
- Artificial double inversion recovery images for (juxta)cortical lesion visualization in multiple sclerosis.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2022Article
- Artificial double inversion recovery images can substitute conventionally acquired images: an MRI-histology study.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Lesion features on magnetic resonance imaging discriminate multiple sclerosis patients.European journal of neurology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cortical demyelinating lesions are clinically important in multiple sclerosis, but notoriously difficult to visualize with MRI. At clinical field strengths, double inversion recovery MRI is most sensitive, but still only detects 18% of all histopathologically validated cortical lesions. More recently, phase-sensitive inversion recovery was suggested to have a higher sensitivity than double inversion recovery, although this claim was not histopathologically validated. Therefore, this retrospective study aimed to provide clarity on this matter by identifying which MRI sequence best detects histopathologically-validated cortical lesions at clinical field strength, by comparing sensitivity and specificity of the thus far most commonly used MRI sequences, which are T2, fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), double inversion recovery and phase-sensitive inversion recovery. Post-mortem MRI was performed on non-fixed coronal hemispheric brain slices of 23 patients with progressive multiple sclerosis directly after autopsy, at 3 T, using T1 and proton-density/T2-weighted, as well as FLAIR, double inversion recovery and phase-sensitive inversion recovery sequences. A total of 93 cortical tissue blocks were sampled from these slices. Blinded to histopathology, all MRI sequences were consensus scored for cortical lesions. Subsequently, tissue samples were stained for proteolipid protein (myelin) and scored for cortical lesion types I-IV (mixed grey matter/white matter, intracortical, subpial and cortex-spanning lesions, respectively). MRI scores were compared to histopathological scores to calculate sensitivity and specificity per sequence. Next, a retrospective (unblinded) scoring was performed to explore maximum scoring potential per sequence. Histopathologically, 224 cortical lesions were detected, of which the majority were subpial. In a mixed model, sensitivity of T1, proton-density/T2, FLAIR, double inversion recovery and phase-sensitive inversion recovery was 8.9%, 5.4%, 5.4%, 22.8% and 23.7%, respectively (20, 12, 12, 51 and 53 cortical lesions). Specificity of the prospective scoring was 80.0%, 75.0%, 80.0%, 91.1% and 88.3%. Sensitivity and specificity did not significantly differ between double inversion recovery and phase-sensitive inversion recovery, while phase-sensitive inversion recovery identified more lesions than double inversion recovery upon retrospective analysis (126 versus 95; P < 0.001). We conclude that, at 3 T, double inversion recovery and phase-sensitive inversion recovery sequences outperform conventional sequences T1, proton-density/T2 and FLAIR. While their overall sensitivity does not exceed 25%, double inversion recovery and phase-sensitive inversion recovery are highly pathologically specific when using existing scoring criteria and their use is recommended for optimal cortical lesion assessment in multiple sclerosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.