ArticleNeuroSci2025
A Case for Automated Segmentation of MRI Data in Neurodegenerative Diseases: Type II GM1 Gangliosidosis.
Article in NeuroSci, 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.
- Expanded Access use of Intravenous Gene Transfer with AAV9-GLB1 in a Juvenile GM1 Gangliosidosis Participant.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Computational Morphometry of Peripheral Nerves: A Pipeline Perspective on Reproducibility and Generalization.Neuroinformatics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVolumetric analysis and segmentation of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data is an important tool for evaluating neurological disease progression and neurodevelopment. Fully automated segmentation pipelines offer faster and more reproducible results. However, since these analysis pipelines were trained on or run based on atlases consisting of neurotypical controls, it is important to evaluate how accurate these methods are for neurodegenerative diseases. In this study, we compared five fully automated segmentation pipelines, including FSL, Freesurfer, volBrain, SPM12, and SimNIBS, with a manual segmentation process in GM1 gangliosidosis patients and neurotypical controls.
methodsWe analyzed 45 MRI scans from 16 juvenile GM1 gangliosidosis patients, 11 MRI scans from 8 late-infantile GM1 gangliosidosis patients, and 19 MRI scans from 11 neurotypical controls. We compared the results for seven brain structures, including volumes of the total brain, bilateral thalamus, ventricles, bilateral caudate nucleus, bilateral lentiform nucleus, corpus callosum, and cerebellum.
resultsWe found volBrain's vol2Brain pipeline to have the strongest correlations with the manual segmentation process for the whole brain, ventricles, and thalamus. We also found Freesurfer's recon-all pipeline to have the strongest correlations with the manual segmentation process for the caudate nucleus. For the cerebellum, we found a combination of volBrain's vol2Brain and SimNIBS' headreco to have the strongest correlations, depending on the cohort. For the lentiform nucleus, we found a combination of recon-all and FSL's FIRST to give the strongest correlations, depending on the cohort. Lastly, we found segmentation of the corpus callosum to be highly variable.
conclusionsPrevious studies have considered automated segmentation techniques to be unreliable, particularly in neurodegenerative diseases. However, in our study, we produced results comparable to those obtained with a manual segmentation process. While manual segmentation processes conducted by neuroradiologists remain the gold standard, we present evidence to the capabilities and advantages of using an automated process that includes the ability to segment white matter throughout the brain or analyze large datasets, which pose feasibility issues to fully manual processes. Future investigations should consider the use of artificial intelligence-based segmentation pipelines to determine their accuracy in GM1 gangliosidosis, lysosomal storage disorders, and other neurodegenerative diseases.
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.