Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35503481›Full record

ArticleBrain structure & function2022

Assessment of structural disconnections in gliomas: comparison of indirect and direct approaches.

Erica Silvestri, Umberto Villani, Manuela Moretto, Maria Colpo, Alessandro Salvalaggio, Mariagiulia Anglani, Marco Castellaro, Silvia Facchini, Elena Monai, Domenico D'Avella and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain structure & function, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Image-based Re-evaluation of the JCOG0911 Study Focusing on Tumor Volume and Survival, Disease Progression Diagnosis, and Radiomic Prognostication for Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2025
    Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

14 authors.

Erica Silvestri *Department of Information Engineering, University of Padova, 35131, Padua, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1853-0777
Umberto Villani *Department of Information Engineering, University of Padova, 35131, Padua, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2016-6943
Manuela MorettoDepartment of Information Engineering, University of Padova, 35131, Padua, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4178-1854
Maria ColpoDepartment of Information Engineering, University of Padova, 35131, Padua, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8509-8569
Alessandro SalvalaggioPadova Neuroscience Center, University of Padova, 35129, Padua, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1273-7566
Mariagiulia AnglaniNeuroradiology Unit, University Hospital of Padova, Padua, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3989-4553
Marco CastellaroDepartment of Information Engineering, University of Padova, 35131, Padua, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1203-2670
Silvia FacchiniPadova Neuroscience Center, University of Padova, 35129, Padua, Italy.
Elena MonaiPadova Neuroscience Center, University of Padova, 35129, Padua, Italy.
Domenico D'AvellaDepartment of Neuroscience, University of Padova, 35128, Padua, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9077-412X
Alessandro Della PuppaNeurosurgery, Department of NEUROFARBA, University Hospital of Careggi, University of Florence, 50139, Florence, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8058-092X
Diego CecchinPadova Neuroscience Center, University of Padova, 35129, Padua, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7956-1924
Maurizio CorbettaPadova Neuroscience Center, University of Padova, 35129, Padua, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8295-3304
Alessandra BertoldoDepartment of Information Engineering, University of Padova, 35131, Padua, Italy. alessandra.bertoldo@unipd.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6262-6354

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gliomas are amongst the most common primary brain tumours in adults and are often associated with poor prognosis. Understanding the extent of white matter (WM) which is affected outside the tumoral lesion may be of paramount importance to explain cognitive deficits and the clinical progression of the disease. To this end, we explored both direct (i.e., tractography based) and indirect (i.e., atlas-based) approaches to quantifying WM structural disconnections in a cohort of 44 high- and low-grade glioma patients. While these methodologies have recently gained popularity in the context of stroke and other pathologies, to our knowledge, this is the first time they are applied in patients with brain tumours. More specifically, in this work, we present a quantitative comparison of the disconnection maps provided by the two methodologies by applying well-known metrics of spatial similarity, extension, and correlation. Given the important role the oedematous tissue plays in the physiopathology of tumours, we performed these analyses both by including and excluding it in the definition of the tumoral lesion. This was done to investigate possible differences determined by this choice. We found that direct and indirect approaches offer two distinct pictures of structural disconnections in patients affected by brain gliomas, presenting key differences in several regions of the brain. Following the outcomes of our analysis, we eventually discuss the strengths and pitfalls of these two approaches when applied in this critical field.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsGliomaWhite MatterAdultBrainBrain MappingHumansDiffusion MRIGliomaStructural disconnectionTractography

Identifiers

PMID35503481
PMCPMC9653324

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.