ArticleMultiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England)2026
Filtered-phase imaging versus susceptibility-weighted imaging for paramagnetic rim lesion detection in multiple sclerosis: A head-to-head comparison.
Article in Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England), 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
Abstract
backgroundParamagnetic rim lesions (PRLs) detected on susceptibility-sensitive magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) represent chronic active lesions and correlate with disease progression in multiple sclerosis (MS). However, optimal detection methods remain unclear.
objectiveTo compare PRL detection using filtered-phase imaging versus susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI) and assess inter-rater reliability among clinical neuroimmunologists.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 3T MRI from 44 relapsing-remitting MS patients. Four neurologists with neuroimmunology training received 30-minute training sessions and evaluated PRLs on both filtered-phase and SWI sequences. Consensus adjudication resolved discordant ratings and served as the reference standard for calculating diagnostic accuracy.
resultsPRLs were identified in 21/44 patients (48%). Relative to consensus as the reference standard, SWI demonstrated higher sensitivity than filtered-phase imaging (66.0% vs. 60.4%), while filtered phase showed superior positive predictive value (0.903 vs. 0.714). Both sequences achieved very high specificity (>97%). Inter-rater reliability was good for SWI (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient [ICC] = 0.85) and moderate for filtered phase (ICC = 0.71) for per-subject PRL counts. Vascular complexity was the most common cause of false-positive identification (65% of cases).
conclusionsBoth techniques reliably detect PRLs with substantial inter-rater agreement. Filtered-phase imaging offers superior positive predictive value, while SWI provides better sensitivity and inter-rater reliability. Further development of a standardized training program for assessment of PRL and studies directly comparing susceptibility-sensitive sequences on different vendor platforms are warranted.
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.