ArticleGeroScience2025
Identifying sources of bias when testing three available algorithms for quantifying white matter lesions: BIANCA, LPA and LGA.
Article in GeroScience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cerebral small vessel disease lesion segmentation methods: A systematic review.Cerebral circulation - cognition and behavior · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Brain magnetic resonance imaging frequently reveals white matter lesions (WMLs) in older adults. They are often associated with cognitive impairment and risk of dementia. Given the continuous search for the optimal segmentation algorithm, we broke down this question by exploring whether the output of algorithms frequently used might be biased by the presence of different influencing factors. We studied the impact of age, sex, blood glucose levels, diabetes, systolic blood pressure and hypertension on automatic WML segmentation algorithms. We evaluated three widely used algorithms (BIANCA, LPA and LGA) using the population-based 1000BRAINS cohort (N = 1166, aged 18-87, 523 females, 643 males). We analysed two main aspects. Firstly, we examined whether training data (TD) characteristics influenced WML estimations, assessing the impact of relevant factors in the TD. Secondly, algorithm's output and performance within selected subgroups defined by these factors were assessed. Results revealed that BIANCA's WML estimations are influenced by the characteristics present in the TD. LPA and LGA consistently provided lower WML estimations compared to BIANCA's output when tested on participants under 67 years of age without risk cardiovascular factors. Notably, LPA and LGA showed reduced accuracy for these participants. However, LPA and LGA showed better performance for older participants presenting cardiovascular risk factors. Results suggest that incorporating comprehensive cohort factors like diverse age, sex and participants with and without hypertension in the TD could enhance WML-based analyses and mitigate potential sources of bias. LPA and LGA are a fast and valid option for older participants with cardiovascular risk factors.
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.