ArticleScientific reports2025
Estimation of reference curves for brain atrophy and analysis of robustness to machine effects.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Predicting multiple sclerosis from radiologically isolated syndrome using generative artificial intelligence.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's are difficult to diagnose due to brain complexity and imaging variability. However, volumetric analysis tools, using reference curves, help detect abnormal brain atrophy and support diagnosis and monitoring. This study evaluates the robustness of three segmentation algorithms, AssemblyNet, FastSurfer and FreeSurfer, in constructing brain volume reference curves and detecting hippocampal atrophy. Using data from 3,730 cognitively normal subjects, we built reference curves and assessed robustness to magnetic field strength (1.5T vs. 3T) using four error metrics (sMAPE, sMSPE, wMAPE, sMdAPE) with bootstrap validation. We evaluated classification performance using hippocampal atrophy rates and HAVAs scores (Hippocampal-Amygdalo-Ventricular Atrophy scores). AssemblyNet shows the lowest errors across all robustness metrics. In contrast, FastSurfer and FreeSurfer exhibit greater deviations, indicating higher sensitivity to field strength variability. AssemblyNet provides consistent hippocampal atrophy rates across all reference models, despite slightly lower sensitivity, while FastSurfer and FreeSurfer display greater variability. Specificity ranges from 0.87 to 0.91 for AssemblyNet, compared to 0.76-0.93 for FastSurfer and 0.86-0.93 for FreeSurfer. Using the HAVAs score, all methods detect high atrophy rates in Alzheimer's patients. FastSurfer achieves the highest sensitivity (0.98), while AssemblyNet reaches the best specificity (0.95) and the highest balanced accuracy (0.91). This study underscores the importance of algorithm choice for reliable brain volumetric analysis in heterogeneous imaging environments. Among the methods tested, AssemblyNet stands out as both sensitive to Alzheimer's-related atrophy and robust to acquisition variability, making it a strong candidate when analyzing hippocampal volumes in large, multi-site datasets.
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.