ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2026
Comparison of Diagnostic Performance Between Standard Susceptibility Map-Weighted Imaging and Susceptibility Map-Weighted Imaging Reconstructed From Clinical SWI and Neuromelanin MRI in Early Parkinson's Disease.
Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2026. 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.
- Editorial for "Comparison of Diagnostic Performance Between Standard Susceptibility Map-Weighted Imaging and Susceptibility Map-Weighted Imaging Reconstructed From Clinical SWI and Neuromelanin MRI in Early Parkinson's Disease".Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSusceptibility map-weighted imaging (SMwI) provides high accuracy for early Parkinson's disease (ePD) by enhancing nigral hyperintensity. However, standard SMwI requires dedicated acquisition; reconstruction from routinely acquired sequences may offer a practical alternative. PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of standard SMwI with SWI- and neuromelanin (NM)-driven SMwI for differentiating ePD from disease controls (DC). STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. SUBJECTS: One hundred and eighty-seven drug-naïve ePD (age: 67.5 ± 9.4 years, 102 male) and 43 DC (age: 67.1 ± 9.2 years, 12 male). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3 T, multi-echo gradient-echo (GRE) for standard SMwI; GRE-based NM imaging: multi-echo GRE for SWI. ASSESSMENT: Nigral hyperintensity was assessed by three neuroradiologists (4-, 2-, and 1-year experience). Diagnostic performance was evaluated using clinical diagnosis for all subjects and PET for 106 subjects (98 ePD, 8 DC). PET-based assessment included side-based analyses accounting for PET laterality and patient-based analyses regardless of direction. STATISTICAL TESTS: Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), accuracy and area under the curve (AUC) were assessed using clinical diagnosis as reference; sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy using PET. Significance was set at p < 0.05.
resultsUsing clinical diagnosis as reference, standard SMwI showed highest diagnostic performance (sensitivity 0.856; specificity 1.000; PPV 1.000; AUC 0.928). SWI-driven SMwI maintained similar sensitivity (p = 0.355) but showed significantly reduced specificity, PPV, accuracy, AUC. In the PET subgroup, side- and patient-based analyses showed no differences in sensitivity (p = 0.261, p = 0.670), specificity (p = 1.000, p = 1.000) and accuracy (p = 0.268, p = 0.695) between standard and SWI-driven SMwI. DATA
conclusionSWI-driven SMwI approached the diagnostic performance of standard SMwI with PET reference but showed inferior performance with clinical diagnosis, suggesting a fallback option when dedicated SMwI is unavailable. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3. TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 1.
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.