ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2023
Scanner agnostic large-scale evaluation of MS lesion delineation tool for clinical MRI.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Exploring approaches to tackle cross-domain challenges in brain medical image segmentation: a systematic review.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Pooled it
- A multi-sequence MRI integration framework using SwinUNETR-v2 for multiple sclerosis lesion segmentation.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Longitudinal deep learning-based segmentation of multiple sclerosis lesions in a local clinical cohort.Frontiers in radiology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the quality and the productivity of neuroradiological reading of multiple sclerosis follow-up MRI scans using an intelligent automation software.Neuroradiology · 2024Article
- Blood-brain barrier permeability in relation to disease severity and timing of multiple sclerosis diagnosis in optic neuritis.Multiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinicalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Patients with MS are MRI scanned continuously throughout their disease course resulting in a large manual workload for radiologists which includes lesion detection and size estimation. Though many models for automatic lesion segmentation have been published, few are used broadly in clinic today, as there is a lack of testing on clinical datasets. By collecting a large, heterogeneous training dataset directly from our MS clinic we aim to present a model which is robust to different scanner protocols and artefacts and which only uses MRI modalities present in routine clinical examinations. Methods: We retrospectively included 746 patients from routine examinations at our MS clinic. The inclusion criteria included acquisition at one of seven different scanners and an MRI protocol including 2D or 3D T2-w FLAIR, T2-w and T1-w images. Reference lesion masks on the training ( Results: We found that our model was able to segment MS white matter lesions with a performance comparable to literature: DSC = 0.68, precision = 0.90, recall = 0.70, f1 = 0.78. Furthermore, the model outperformed HD-MS-Lesions in all metrics except precision = 0.96. In the leave-one-scanner-out experiment there was no significant change in performance ( Conclusion: In conclusion we have seen, that by including a large, heterogeneous dataset emulating clinical reality, we have trained a segmentation model which maintains a high segmentation performance while being robust to data from unseen scanners. This broadens the applicability of the model in clinic and paves the way for clinical implementation.
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.