ArticleScientific reports2025
Advantage of grading classification using volumetric artificial intelligence for periventricular hyperintensity and deep subcortical white matter hyperintensity.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We developed and validated an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm for the automated grading of periventricular hyperintensity (PVH) and deep subcortical white matter hyperintensity (DWMH) using magnetic resonance imaging. Overall, 246 patients were evaluated, with 137 and 109 allocated to the training and testing groups, respectively. AI-predicted grading according to the Fazekas scale was compared with expert assessments using accuracy, F1-score, and mean absolute error. Inter-rater agreement was evaluated using Fleiss' kappa to assess consistency among human raters and Cohen's kappa to measure agreement between the AI and individual human raters. The AI demonstrated superior multi-class accuracy in PVH classification compared with the human expert, achieving an accuracy of 0.798 versus 0.743. In DWMH classification, the AI outperformed the expert specifically in distinguishing Fazekas 0/1/2 from the 3 classification, achieving an accuracy of 0.954 compared with the expert's 0.927. Inter-rater agreement analysis showed that for PVH and DWMH, the AI achieved "good agreement" with human raters. For PVH, the AI's agreement exceeded the human inter-rater agreement. The developed AI also exhibited lower variability in volume ratio distribution within the same grade compared with human raters. The developed AI algorithm effectively distinguished between PVH and DWMH, achieving accuracy comparable to human performance.
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.