ArticleScientific reports2022
Artificial double inversion recovery images can substitute conventionally acquired images: an MRI-histology study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A DERIVED RELAXATION CONTRAST FROM SYNTHETIC MRI FOR DETECTING NETWORK MICROSTRUCTURAL VULNERABILITY.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Longitudinal changes in cortical cell body and neurite density in people with multiple sclerosis.Neuroscience · 2025Article
- In vivo evidence for cell body loss in cortical lesions in people with multiple sclerosis.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2025Article
- Cortical lesions impact cognitive decline in multiple sclerosis via volume loss of nonlesional cortex.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2025Article
- Decoding Gray Matter Involvement in Multiple Sclerosis via Imaging.Neuroimaging clinics of North America · 2024Review
- Multicenter Evaluation of AI-generated DIR and PSIR for Cortical and Juxtacortical Multiple Sclerosis Lesion Detection.Radiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cortical multiple sclerosis lesions are disease-specific, yet inconspicuous on magnetic resonance images (MRI). Double inversion recovery (DIR) images are sensitive, but often unavailable in clinical routine and clinical trials. Artificially generated images can mitigate this issue, but lack histopathological validation. In this work, artificial DIR images were generated from postmortem 3D-T1 and proton-density (PD)/T2 or 3D-T1 and 3D fluid-inversion recovery (FLAIR) images, using a generative adversarial network. All sequences were scored for cortical lesions, blinded to histopathology. Subsequently, tissue samples were stained for proteolipid protein (myelin) and scored for cortical lesions type I-IV (leukocortical, intracortical, subpial and cortex-spanning, respectively). Histopathological scorings were then (unblinded) compared to MRI using linear mixed models. Images from 38 patients (26 female, mean age 64.3 ± 10.7) were included. A total of 142 cortical lesions were detected, predominantly subpial. Histopathology-blinded/unblinded sensitivity was 13.4/35.2% for artificial DIR generated from T1-PD/T2, 14.1/41.5% for artificial DIR from T1-FLAIR, 17.6/49.3% for conventional DIR and 10.6/34.5% for 3D-T1. When blinded to histopathology, there were no differences; with histopathological feedback at hand, conventional DIR and artificial DIR from T1-FLAIR outperformed the other sequences. Differences between histopathology-blinded/unblinded sensitivity could be minified through adjustment of the scoring criteria. In conclusion, artificial DIR images, particularly generated from T1-FLAIR could potentially substitute conventional DIR images when these are unavailable.
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.