ArticleNeuroImage. Clinical2026
A comparative study of deep learning for cortical lesion MRI segmentation with explainability analysis in multiple sclerosis.
Article in NeuroImage. Clinical, 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cortical lesions (CLs) have emerged as valuable biomarkers in multiple sclerosis (MS), offering high diagnostic specificity and prognostic relevance. However, their routine clinical integration remains limited due to subtle magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) appearance, challenges in expert annotation, and a lack of standardized automated methods. We present a multi-centric comparative study of CL detection and segmentation in MRI. A total of 656 MRI scans, including clinical trial and research data from four institutions, were acquired at 3T and 7T using MP2RAGE and MPRAGE sequences with expert-consensus annotations. We rely on the self-configuring nnU-Net framework, designed for medical imaging segmentation, and propose adaptations tailored to the improved CL detection. We evaluated model generalization through out-of-distribution testing, demonstrating promising lesion detection capabilities with an F1-score of 0.64 and 0.5 in and out of the domain, respectively. We also analyze internal model features and model errors for a better understanding of AI decision-making. Our study examines how data variability, lesion ambiguity, and protocol differences impact model performance, offering future recommendations to address these barriers to clinical adoption. Furthermore, we designed and implemented a medical expert questionnaire for better assessment of clinical value of the model predictions. To reinforce the reproducibility, the implementation and models will be publicly accessible and ready to use at GitHub and Zenodo.
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.