ArticleNeuroradiology2022
Assessment of 2D conventional and synthetic MRI in multiple sclerosis.
Article in Neuroradiology, 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.
- Synthetic MRI and radiomics in multiple sclerosis: improving precision in diagnosis and prognosis.Radiological physics and technology · 2026Review
- Neuroimaging Reader Study on Clinical Sensitivity and Specificity Using Synthetic MRI Based on MR Quantification.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2025Article
- Technical aspects and clinical applications of synthetic MRI: a scoping review.Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany) · 2025Article
- Synthetic MR: Clinical applications in neuroradiology.Neuroradiology · 2025Review
- Comparison of Syn T2-FLAIR and Syn DIR with conventional T2-FLAIR in displaying white matter hyperintensities in migraine patients.Neuroradiology · 2025Article
- Lesion assessment in multiple sclerosis: a comparison between synthetic and conventional fluid-attenuated inversion recovery imaging.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo qualitatively and quantitatively compare synthetic and conventional MRI sequences acquired on a 1.5-T system for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).
methodsProspective study that involved twenty-seven consecutive relapsing-remitting MS patients scanned on a 1.5-T MRI scanner. The MRI protocol included 2D transverse conventional spin-echo sequences: proton density-weighted (PD), T2-weighted, T2-FLAIR, and T1-weighted. Synthetic images were generated using 2D transverse QRAPMASTER and SyMRI software with the same voxel size, repetition, echo, and inversion times as the conventional sequences. Four raters performed a crosstab qualitative analysis that involved evaluating global image quality, contrast, flow artefacts, and confidence in lesion assessment introducing the concepts of predominance, agreement, and disagreement. A quantitative analysis was also performed and included evaluating the number of lesions (periventricular, juxtacortical, brainstem, and cerebellum) and the contrast-to-noise ratio between regions (CSF, white matter, grey matter, lesions).
resultsThe global image quality assessment showed predominance for better scores for conventional sequences over synthetic sequences, whereas contrast, confidence in lesion assessment, and flow artefacts showed predominance for agreement between sequences. There was predominance for disagreement between all pairs of raters in most of the evaluated qualitative parameters. Synthetic PD and T2-FLAIR images showed higher contrast-to-noise ratios than the corresponding conventional images for most comparison between regions. There were no significant differences in the number of lesions detected for most of the study regions between conventional and synthetic images.
conclusionSynthetic MRI can be potentially used as an alternative to conventional brain MRI sequences in the assessment of MS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35583667What 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.