ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
The effect of lesion filling on brain age estimation in multiple sclerosis.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBrain age estimation is an emerging biomarker for assessing neurodegeneration in multiple sclerosis (MS). However, MS-related lesions can distort structural measurements, potentially leading to inaccuracies in age prediction models. Lesion filling has been proposed as a corrective step, but its impact on brain age estimation and its associations with clinical and structural markers remains unclear.
methodsWe analyzed 571 relapsing-remitting MS patients using the BrainAgeR pipeline to estimate brain age from both non-lesion-filled and lesion-filled T1-weighted images. Bias correction was applied to remove age-related prediction bias. Brain Age Gap (BAG) was computed as the difference between corrected predicted brain age and chronological age. Multivariable linear regression models were used to assess associations between BAG and clinical outcomes (EDSS, 9HPT, SDMT, 25FWT) and volumetric measures.
resultsNon-lesion-filled and lesion-filled brain age estimates showed excellent agreement (r = 0.97; ICC = 0.962), with a mean difference of 1.23 years and slightly lower mean absolute error for lesion-filled predictions (8.12 vs. 9.40 years). Both BAG measures were significantly associated with EDSS, 9HPT, and SDMT, though effect sizes were modest. Lesion-filled BAG showed stronger and more consistent associations with gray matter, thalamic, and hippocampal volumes, and these associations remained significant after Bonferroni correction.
conclusionLesion filling modestly improves structural interpretability of brain age estimates in MS but has limited effect on clinical correlations. The high concordance between lesion-filled and non-lesion-filled estimates confirms the robustness of brain age as a biomarker, while supporting the use of lesion correction when structural precision is essential.
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.