Observational studyClinical neuroradiology2025
Diagnostic Accuracy of Isotropic FLAIR-T2* Fusion Imaging for Central Vein Sign Detection in Multiple Sclerosis: a Comparative Study at 1.5 T and 3 T.
Observational study in Clinical neuroradiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe central vein sign (CVS) is a promising imaging biomarker for multiple sclerosis (MS) diagnosis. While isotropic T2* at 3 T and 7 T has demonstrated high diagnostic performance, its utility at 1.5 T remains unclear. This study evaluates the performance of unenhanced FLAIR-T2* fusion at 1.5 T compared to 3 T in MS participants.
methodsThis prospective observational study included 20 MS patients and 20 control subjects. Each participant underwent unenhanced isotropic Epi-T2* and isotropic FLAIR (0.8 mm voxel size) at both 1.5 T and 3 T. Subsequently, the derived isotropic T2* and FLAIR were combined to create the final FLAIR-T2* fusion in both magnetic field strengths. Two independent raters assessed the CVS status of white matter (WM) lesions using NAIMS criteria. WM lesions were classified as CVS+ or CVS-, and two methods-select-n* and CVS+ proportion-were applied. Sensitivity and specificity were computed, and CVS performance was compared across WM lesion locations.
resultsAmong eligible WM lesions (MS: 258; controls: 255), the mean CVS+ lesion proportion per participant was 66.9 ± 15.4% for 1.5 T FLAIR-T2* and 77.0 ± 13.6% for 3 T FLAIR-T2* (p < 0.01). At a 40% threshold, 1.5 T FLAIR-T2* achieved 90% sensitivity and 95% specificity, while 3 T FLAIR-T2* achieved 100% sensitivity and 95% specificity. The Select-6* method resulted in only one MS patient being misclassified at both field strengths. 3 T FLAIR-T2* detected more CVS+ lesions in deep WM (87.5% vs. 57.1%, p = 0.05).
conclusion1.5 T FLAIR-T2* fusion demonstrates high performance in CVS assessment, although slightly outperformed by 3 T FLAIR-T2*. The select-6* method may enhance 1.5 T performance, supporting its feasibility for CVS evaluation.
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.