ArticleBMC medical imaging2026
Nano-radiomics of molecular MRI for early amyloid associated patterns in an Alzheimer's disease mouse model via an automatic pipeline.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe combination of nanoparticle contrast agents with advanced image analysis techniques like radiomics offers a powerful new approach for disease detection and characterization. This study presents a novel automated pipeline for segmentation and nano-radiomic analysis of nanoprobe-enhanced images. We demonstrate the effectiveness of this pipeline in an Alzheimer’s disease (AD) mouse model, showing improved detection of amyloid pathology compared to conventional methods.
methodsThe study used the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data collected from double transgenic (TG) AD mice, including 13 mice aged 6–8 month old with lower amyloid burden and 36 mice aged 11–18 month old with higher amyloid burden. Wild type (WT) mice served as controls. Three contrast doses were administered to older mice, while one dose was applied to younger mice. A UNet-based model was trained on mouse brain scans to automatically segment two specific regions, and the results were compared to those from semi-automatic segmentation (i.e. manual brain atlas registration to MRIs with automatic region extraction). 89 radiomic features (RFs) per region were computed, followed by genotype classification using machine learning and sensitivity analyses. Image-based conventional metric (percentage change between pre- and post-contrast MRI intensity signal) was compared to radiomics-based approaches.
resultsThe UNet-based model with SWIN transformer performed the best, achieving Dice coefficients between 0.80 and 0.95. Non-parametric statistical tests showed no significant difference in segmentation performance based on amyloid burden, nanoparticle contrast, or contrast doses. RF-based classification performance was similar between automatic and semi-automatic approaches. In older mice with good-quality segmentation, the automatic approach outperformed the semi-automatic method across all dose-specific test sets (all 1.0) but not the validation set (0.90 vs. 1.0). The top classifier from automatic approach also required 2x less RFs. In younger mice, classification performance varied with segmentation approach and inclusion of fair-quality segmentation. Yet the top classifiers typically required only one or two RFs.
conclusionsNano-radiomic analysis of targeted nanoparticle contrast-enhanced MRIs outperformed conventional imaging metrics for early detection of pathological amyloid deposition in an AD mouse model. Automated segmentation achieved performance comparable to the semi-automatic method, while improving efficiency.
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.