ArticleFrontiers in radiology2026
MRI approach to the patient with suspected dementia: artificial intelligence techniques and semi-quantitative rating scales compared.
Article in Frontiers in 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the reliability of semi-quantitative and AI-based quantitative brain volume evaluation (Quantib® ND) in predicting clinical diagnosis in patients with suspected neurodegenerative diseases undergoing initial 1.5 T MRI. Additionally, to analyze the frequency of lobar microbleeds (MBs) at diagnosis. Methods: Two neuroradiologists (2 vs. 10 years' experience), blinded to diagnosis, independently evaluated brain atrophy on 3D-T1 images of 133 subjects using Scheltens, Koedam, and Kipps scales. Automated volumetric analysis was performed using Quantib® ND. SWI images were assessed by one neuroradiologist to classify MBs as cortical, juxtacortical, subcortical, or deep. Inter-observer agreement was measured using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC); correlation with Quantib® ND was analyzed using Spearman's coefficient. Cohen's Kappa assessed agreement with clinical diagnosis. Results: Good inter-observer agreement was observed for the MTA scale (ICC 0.86 right, 0.82 left) and Kipps scale (ICC 0.76), with moderate concordance for Koedam (ICC 0.66). Frontal and posterior temporal Kipps subregions had good concordance (ICC 0.77, 0.79), while anterior temporal showed poor agreement (ICC 0.59). Diagnostic accuracy was moderate across observers and Quantib® ND. Observer 1 showed 77% sensitivity, 51% specificity; observer 2 had 79% sensitivity, 62% specificity; Quantib® ND reached 56% sensitivity, 74% specificity. Patients exhibited significantly more lobar MBs than non-dementia patients ( Conclusions: Semi-quantitative visual scales proved effective and sensitive for detecting brain atrophy, showing good concordance with automated volumetric data. While AI-based quantification demonstrated higher specificity, visual assessment remained more sensitive. Lobar MBs were more frequent in neurodegenerative cases.
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.