ArticleNeuroImage2025
Towards quantitative intensity analysis of conventional T1-weighted images in multiple sclerosis.
Article in NeuroImage, 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Conventional T1-weighted (T1w) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is commonly used in multiple sclerosis (MS) morphometry and volumetry research. However, arbitrary intensity scales preclude interpretation of signal values across patients, sites, and time. This requires quantitative MRI techniques, which are not always available. This study assessed T1w image intensity scaling methods, relying on extracerebral reference regions, for quantitative analysis of brain MRI in MS. In total, 701 people with a diagnosis of radiologically isolated syndrome, clinically isolated syndrome, or MS were included. Four intensity scaling strategies were applied: 1) MRI signal modeling, 2) linear scaling with reference regions, 3) z-score standardization, and 4) none (only bias field correction). Methods were evaluated using variance analysis, R1 map comparison, and normal-appearing white matter (NAWM) intensity group comparison, using mean and coefficient of variation (CoV), between low (≤3) and high (>3) expanded disability status scale (EDSS) scores. Statistical analysis was conducted using Pearson's r, two-sided Welch two-sample t-test, ANCOVA, and Cohen's d. Linear scaling with temporal fatty tissue achieved the most consistent variance reduction and strong correlation with R1 maps (r = 0.84). R1 values in NAWM were significantly lower in people with high compared to low EDSS scores (d = -0.351). Similarly, group differences in mean NAWM intensity of fat-scaled images were significant (d = -0.252). The largest group differences were found in NAWM CoV in bias field-corrected T1w images (d = 0.818). Linear scaling with fatty tissue most accurately reproduced the results obtained with R1 maps. Changes in MS NAWM appear to increase intensity variability detectable in conventional T1w images.
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.