ArticleJournal of neuromuscular diseases2025
Automated analysis of quantitative muscle MRI and its reliability in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy.
Article in Journal of neuromuscular diseases, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundQuantitative muscle MRI is one of the most promising biomarkers to detect subclinical disease progression in patients with neuromuscular disorders, including Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). However, its clinical application has been limited partly due to the time-intensive process of manual segmentation.
objectiveWe present a simple and fast automated approach to obtain quantitative measurement of thigh muscle fat fraction and investigate its reliability in patients with DMD.
methodsClinical and radiological baseline and 6-month follow-up data of 41 ambulant patients with DMD were analysed retrospectively. Axial 2-point Dixon MR images of all thigh muscles were used to quantify mean fat fraction, while clinical outcomes were measured by the Motor Function Measure (MFM) and its D1 domain. Data obtained by automated segmentation were compared to manual segmentation and correlated with clinical outcomes. Results were also used to compare the statistical power when using automated or manual segmentation.
resultsA mean increase of 3.55% in thigh muscle fat fraction at 6-month follow-up could be detected by both methods without any significant difference between them (p=0.437). The automated muscle segmentation method demonstrated a strong correlation with manually segmented data (Pearson's ρ = 0.97). Additionally, there was no statistically significant difference between the automated and manual segmentation methods in their association with clinical progression, as measured by the total MFM score and its D1 domain (p = 0.235 and p = 0.425, respectively).
conclusionsThe presented automated segmentation technique is a fast and reliable tool for assessing disease progression, particularly in the early stages of DMD. It is one of the few studies validated using manual segmentation, and with further refinement, it has the potential to become a good surrogate marker for disease progression in various neuromuscular disorders.
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.