ArticleHuman brain mapping2024
Comparison of automated and manual quantification methods for neuromelanin-sensitive MRI in Parkinson's disease.
Article in Human brain mapping, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spectral presaturation with inversion recovery provides superior neuromelanin imaging for Parkinson's disease evaluation compared to magnetization transfer.Neuroradiology · 2026Article
- Neuromelanin imaging outperforms free water imaging in diagnosing early Parkinson's disease: a comparative MRI study.NPJ Parkinson's disease · 2026Article
- An MRI Deep Brain Adult Template With An Advanced Atlas-Based Tool For Diffusion Tensor Imaging Analysis.Scientific data · 2024Article
- Parkinson's disease cerebrovascular reactivity pattern: A feasibility study.Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2024Article
- Comparison of automated and manual quantification methods for neuromelanin-sensitive MRI in Parkinson's disease.Human brain mapping · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Neuromelanin-sensitive magnetic resonance imaging quantitative analysis methods have provided promising biomarkers that can noninvasively quantify degeneration of the substantia nigra in patients with Parkinson's disease. However, there is a need to systematically evaluate the performance of manual and automated quantification approaches. We evaluate whether spatial, signal-intensity, or subject specific abnormality measures using either atlas based or manually traced identification of the substantia nigra better differentiate patients with Parkinson's disease from healthy controls using logistic regression models and receiver operating characteristics. Inference was performed using bootstrap analyses to calculate 95% confidence interval bounds. Pairwise comparisons were performed by generating 10,000 permutations, refitting the models, and calculating a paired difference between metrics. Thirty-one patients with Parkinson's disease and 22 healthy controls were included in the analyses. Signal intensity measures significantly outperformed spatial and subject specific abnormality measures, with the top performers exhibiting excellent ability to differentiate patients with Parkinson's disease and healthy controls (balanced accuracy = 0.89; area under the curve = 0.81; sensitivity =0.86; and specificity = 0.83). Atlas identified substantia nigra metrics performed significantly better than manual tracing metrics. These results provide clear support for the use of automated signal intensity metrics and additional recommendations. Future work is necessary to evaluate whether the same metrics can best differentiate atypical parkinsonism, perform similarly in de novo and mid-stage cohorts, and serve as longitudinal monitoring biomarkers.
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.