Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36590285›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in neuroscience2022

A critical guide to the automated quantification of perivascular spaces in magnetic resonance imaging.

William Pham, Miranda Lynch, Gershon Spitz, Terence O'Brien, Lucy Vivash, Benjamin Sinclair, Meng Law

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. segcsvdHuman brain mapping · 2026
    Article
  10. The enigma of vascular dementia: current state and emerging perspectives.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2026
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. DRIPS: Domain Randomisation for Image-based Perivascular spaces Segmentation.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025
    Article
  15. Imaging brain fluid dynamics and waste clearance involving perivascular spaces in cerebral small vessel disease.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Review
  16. Cerebral small vessel disease lesion segmentation methods: A systematic review.Cerebral circulation - cognition and behavior · 2025
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

William PhamDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Miranda LynchDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Gershon SpitzDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Terence O'BrienDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Lucy VivashDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Benjamin SinclairDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Meng LawDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The glymphatic system is responsible for waste clearance in the brain. It is comprised of perivascular spaces (PVS) that surround penetrating blood vessels. These spaces are filled with cerebrospinal fluid and interstitial fluid, and can be seen with magnetic resonance imaging. Various algorithms have been developed to automatically label these spaces in MRI. This has enabled volumetric and morphological analyses of PVS in healthy and disease cohorts. However, there remain inconsistencies between PVS measures reported by different methods of automated segmentation. The present review emphasizes that importance of voxel-wise evaluation of model performance, mainly with the Sørensen Dice similarity coefficient. Conventional count correlations for model validation are inadequate if the goal is to assess volumetric or morphological measures of PVS. The downside of voxel-wise evaluation is that it requires manual segmentations that require large amounts of time to produce. One possible solution is to derive these semi-automatically. Additionally, recommendations are made to facilitate rigorous development and validation of automated PVS segmentation models. In the application of automated PVS segmentation tools, publication of image quality metrics, such as the contrast-to-noise ratio, alongside descriptive statistics of PVS volumes and counts will facilitate comparability between studies. Lastly, a head-to-head comparison between two algorithms, applied to two cohorts of astronauts reveals how results can differ substantially between techniques.

Indexed as

computer visionglymphatic systemMRIperivascular space (PVS)segmentation

Identifiers

PMID36590285
PMCPMC9795229

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.