ArticleEuropean journal of radiology2026
Comparison of central FLAIR hypointensity and central vein sign on FLAIR* in a diagnostic cohort.
Article in European journal of radiology, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe central vein sign (CVS) is a neuroimaging biomarker in multiple sclerosis (MS) with high diagnostic specificity. CVS is best detected with high-quality susceptibility-sensitive MRI sequences. For concurrent detection of lesions and veins, FLAIR* was developed as a post-processing method to provide contrast for T2 hyperintense lesions (FLAIR) and paramagnetic hypointense veins (T2*-weighted). Occasionally, CVS-like features have been noted on FLAIR, but the reliability of this finding is unknown.
objectiveTo compare the central FLAIR hypointensity to FLAIR* CVS.
methodsScans from the CentrAl Vein Sign in MS (CAVS-MS) pilot study were included for the analysis. A blinded rater assessed all lesions for CVS on 3-tesla post-contrast FLAIR*. A second blinded rater assessed the same lesions for central hypointensity on FLAIR images alone. Counts were compared between methods. The same approach was applied for a subset with available non-contrast FLAIR* lesion ratings.
resultsWith post-contrast FLAIR* CVS as the standard (n= 92; 1737 lesions), central FLAIR hypointensity demonstrated concordance of 64%, with sensitivity of 34% (95% CI, 30-37%) and specificity of 83% (95% CI, 81-85%). With non-contrast FLAIR* CVS as the standard (n= 38; 768 lesions), FLAIR demonstrated sensitivity of 40% (95% CI, 33-47%) and specificity of 85% (95% CI, 82-88%). Select 6 (≥6 central hypointense lesions) FLAIR was 59% accurate for a diagnosis of MS, with a lower specificity (63% vs. 90%, p= 0.008) in comparison to post-contrast FLAIR*.
conclusionsAssessment of CVS on FLAIR alone is unreliable and requires susceptibility-sensitive sequences to be clinically useful.
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.