ArticleNeuroradiology2024
Automatic estimation of brain parenchymal fraction in patients with multple sclerosis: a comparison between synthetic MRI and an established automated brain segmentation software based on FSL.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- SynthSR-generated 3D T1-weighted MRI from routine 2D clinical images: Validation for VSRAD analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Lesion assessment in multiple sclerosis: a comparison between synthetic and conventional fluid-attenuated inversion recovery imaging.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Brain volume is a better biomarker of outcomes in ischemic stroke compared to brain atrophy.Frontiers in stroke · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to validate the estimation of the brain parenchymal fraction (BPF) in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) using synthetic magnetic resonance imaging (SyMRI) by comparison with software tools of the FMRIB Software Library (FSL). In addition to a cross-sectional method comparison, longitudinal volume changes were assessed to further elucidate the suitability of SyMRI for quantification of disease-specific changes.
methodsMRI data from 216 patients with MS and 28 control participants were included for volume estimation by SyMRI and FSL-SIENAX. Moreover, longitudinal data from 35 patients with MS were used to compare registration-based percentage brain volume changes estimated using FSL-SIENA to difference-based calculations of volume changes using SyMRI.
resultsWe observed strong correlations of estimated brain volumes between the two methods. While SyMRI overestimated grey matter and BPF compared to FSL-SIENAX, indicating a systematic bias, there was excellent agreement according to intra-class correlation coefficients for grey matter and good agreement for BPF and white matter. Bland-Altman plots suggested that the inter-method differences in BPF were smaller in patients with brain atrophy compared to those without atrophy. Longitudinal analyses revealed a tendency for higher atrophy rates for SyMRI than for SIENA, but SyMRI had a robust correlation and a good agreement with SIENA.
conclusionIn summary, BPF based on data from SyMRI and FSL-SIENAX is not directly transferable because an overestimation and higher variability of SyMRI values were observed. However, the consistency and correlations between the two methods were satisfactory, and SyMRI was suitable to quantify disease-specific atrophy in MS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.