ArticleClinical neuroradiology2025
Enhanced Reader Confidence and Differentiation of Calcification from Cerebral Microbleed Diagnosis Using QSM Relative to SWI.
Article in Clinical neuroradiology, 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.
- Clinical Performance of Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping in Cerebral Microbleed Detection Relative to 2D GRE.Clinical neuroradiology · 2025Article
- Imaging of Cerebral Iron as an Emerging Marker for Brain Aging, Neurodegeneration, and Cerebrovascular Diseases.Brain sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAccurate detection of cerebral microbleeds (CMBs) is important for detection of multiple conditions. However, CMBs can be challenging to identify on MR images, especially for distinguishing CMBs from the mimic of calcification. We performed a comparative reader study to assess the diagnostic performance of two primary MR sequences for differentiating CMBs from calcification.
methodsUnder IRB approved exempt retrospective protocol, 49 adult patients with identifiable intracranial hemorrhage who underwent multi-echo 3D Gradient Recall Echo (GRE) using 3T MRI were non-sequentially recruited under a retrospective IRB approved protocol. Multi-echo complex total field inversion quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) and susceptibility weighted imaging/phase (SWI/P) images were generated for all patients. 53 lesion ROIs were identified and classified on provided images by an expert panel of three neuroradiologists as either: CMB, Blood, Calcification, or Other. Three additional neuroradiologists subsequently reviewed the same SWI/P and QSM images in independent sessions and designated lesions as either blood and/or calcification using a 5-point Likert scale. Statistical analyses, on lesion classification and reader diagnostic accuracy, reader confidence-level, reader agreement-level, and the predictability of mean susceptibility values between SWI/P and QSM were conducted with logistic regression and calculation of Fleiss' κ, Kendall's w, Krippendorff's α.
resultsAcross all qualitative assessment and quantitative metrics measured (simple accuracy, confidence as degree of ground truth alignment, and inter-rater agreement) QSM outperformed SWI/P. Additionally, logistic regression of average QSM voxel susceptibility achieved near-perfect separation in differentiating between CMB and calcification in the limited number of CMB/Calcification ROIs, indicating a high predictability.
conclusionOur study demonstrates that QSM offers improved detectability and classification of CMBs compared to the conventionally utilized SWI/P sequence. In addition, QSM simplifies the interpretation workflow by reducing the number of requisite images compared with the conventional counterpart, with improved diagnostic confidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39690177What 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.