ArticleFrontiers in aging neuroscience2026
Artificial intelligence for white matter hyperintensity segmentation: performance, determinants, and clinical implications.
Article in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: White matter hyperintensities (WMH) are key neuroimaging markers of cerebral small vessel disease, associated with cognitive decline and stroke risk. Accurate quantification is essential yet manual segmentation is time-consuming and variable. We systematically evaluated AI performance for automated WMH segmentation across disease contexts and identified factors influencing model performance. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and IEEE Xplore from database inception to February 3, 2026 (PROSPERO: CRD420261355769). Studies employing AI-based WMH segmentation and reporting Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) were included. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted, along with subgroup analyses, meta-regression, sensitivity analyses, and publication bias assessment. Results: 26 studies comprising 4,288 participants contributed to quantitative syntheses: 13 evaluated WMH segmentation in general cohorts, and 13 evaluated AD or CSVD-specific cohorts. In the general cohort meta-analysis, the pooled DSC was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.74-0.82). Disease-specific pooled DSC estimates were 0.75 for AD and 0.78 for CSVD. Exploratory meta-regression suggested an association between scanning parameters and DSC ( Conclusion: AI demonstrates promising performance for automated WMH segmentation, with U-Net-based architectures showing superior accuracy. However, substantial heterogeneity highlights the need for standardized imaging protocols and robust external validation. Future multicenter studies are essential to improve model generalizability and facilitate clinical translation.
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.