ArticleScientific reports2022
Proof of principle for the clinical use of a CE-certified automatic imaging analysis tool in rare diseases studying hereditary spastic paraplegia type 4 (SPG4).
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Scan-rescan reliability assessment of brain volumetric analysis across scanners and software solutions.Scientific reports · 2025Article
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Usage of MR imaging biomarkers is limited to experts. Automatic quantitative reports provide access for clinicians to data analysis. Automated data analysis was tested for usability in a small cohort of patients with hereditary spastic paraplegia type 4 (SPG4). We analyzed 3T MRI 3D-T1 datasets of n = 25 SPG4 patients and matched healthy controls using a commercial segmentation tool (AIRAscore structure 2.0.1) and standard VBM. In SPG4 total brain volume was reduced by 27.6 percentiles (p = 0.001) caused mainly by white matter loss (- 30.8th, p < 0.001) and stable total gray matter compared to controls. Brain volume loss occurred in: midbrain (- 41.5th, p = 0.001), pons (- 36.5th, p = 0.02), hippocampus (- 20.9th, p = 0.002), and gray matter of the cingulate gyrus (- 17.0th, p = 0.02). Ventricular volumes increased as indirect measures of atrophy. Group comparisons using percentiles aligned with results from VBM analyses. Quantitative imaging reports proved to work as an easily accessible, fully automatic screening tool for clinicians, even in a small cohort of a rare genetic disorder. We could delineate the involvement of white matter and specify involved brain regions. Group comparisons using percentiles provide comparable results to VBM analysis and are, therefore, a suitable and simple screening tool for all clinicians with and without in-depth knowledge of image processing.
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.