Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37274207›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2023

Scanner agnostic large-scale evaluation of MS lesion delineation tool for clinical MRI.

Amalie Monberg Hindsholm, Flemming Littrup Andersen, Stig Præstekjær Cramer, Helle Juhl Simonsen, Mathias Gæde Askløf, Melinda Magyari, Poul Nørgaard Madsen, Adam Espe Hansen, Finn Sellebjerg, Henrik Bo Wiberg Larsson and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

15 authors.

Amalie Monberg Hindsholm *Department of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Flemming Littrup Andersen *Department of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Stig Præstekjær CramerDepartment of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Helle Juhl SimonsenDepartment of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Mathias Gæde AskløfDepartment of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Melinda MagyariDepartment of Neurology, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Poul Nørgaard MadsenCenter for IT and Medical Technology, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Adam Espe HansenDepartment of Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Finn SellebjergDepartment of Neurology, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Henrik Bo Wiberg LarssonDepartment of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Annika Reynberg LangkildeDepartment of Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jette Lautrup FrederiksenDepartment of Neurology, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Liselotte HøjgaardDepartment of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Claes Nøhr LadefogedDepartment of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ulrich LindbergDepartment of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

automatic segmentation algorithmclinical applicabilityclinical datasetheterogeneous datasetmultiple sclerosismulti-scannerwhite matter lesions (WML)

Identifiers

PMID37274207
PMCPMC10235534

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.