ArticleNeurology2025
Deep Learning Modeling to Differentiate Multiple Sclerosis From MOG Antibody-Associated Disease.
Article in Neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Big data in multiple sclerosis.Current opinion in neurology · 2026Review
- Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis Using Multimodal Deep Learning Integrating Lesion and Normal-Appearing White Matter: A Retrospective Study with International Multicentre External Validation.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
55 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesMultiple sclerosis (MS) is common in adults while myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody-associated disease (MOGAD) is rare. Our previous machine-learning algorithm, using clinical variables, ≤6 brain lesions, and no Dawson fingers, achieved 79% accuracy, 78% sensitivity, and 80% specificity in distinguishing MOGAD from MS but lacked validation. The aim of this study was to (1) evaluate the clinical/MRI algorithm for distinguishing MS from MOGAD, (2) develop a deep learning (DL) model, (3) assess the benefit of combining both, and (4) identify key differentiators using probability attention maps (PAMs).
methodsThis multicenter, retrospective, cross-sectional MAGNIMS study included scans from 19 centers. Inclusion criteria were as follows: adults with non-acute MS and MOGAD, with high-quality T2-fluid-attenuated inversion recovery and T1-weighted scans. Brain scans were scored by 2 readers to assess the performance of the clinical/MRI algorithm on the validation data set. A DL-based classifier using a ResNet-10 convolutional neural network was developed and tested on an independent validation data set. PAMs were generated by averaging correctly classified attention maps from both groups, identifying key differentiating regions.
resultsWe included 406 MRI scans (218 with relapsing remitting MS [RRMS], mean age: 39 years ±11, 69% F; 188 with MOGAD, age: 41 years ±14, 61% F), split into 2 data sets: a training/testing set (n = 265: 150 with RRMS, age: 39 years ±10, 72% F; 115 with MOGAD, age: 42 years ±13, 61% F) and an independent validation set (n = 141: 68 with RRMS, age: 40 years ±14, 65% F; 73 with MOGAD, age: 40 years ±15, 63% F). The clinical/MRI algorithm predicted RRMS over MOGAD with 75% accuracy (95% CI 67-82), 96% sensitivity (95% CI 88-99), and specificity 56% (95% CI 44-68) in the validation cohort. The DL model achieved 77% accuracy (95% CI 64-89), 73% sensitivity (95% CI 57-89), and 83% specificity (95% CI 65-96) in the training/testing cohort, and 70% accuracy (95% CI 63-77), 67% sensitivity (95% CI 55-79), and 73% specificity (95% CI 61-83) in the validation cohort without retraining. When combined, the classifiers reached 86% accuracy (95% CI 81-92), 84% sensitivity (95% CI 75-92), and 89% specificity (95% CI 81-96). PAMs identified key region volumes: corpus callosum (1872 mm DISCUSSION: Both classifiers effectively distinguished RRMS from MOGAD. The clinical/MRI model showed higher sensitivity while the DL model offered higher specificity, suggesting complementary roles. Their combination improved diagnostic accuracy, and PAMs revealed distinct damage patterns. Future prospective studies should validate these models in diverse, real-world settings. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class III evidence that both a clinical/MRI algorithm and an MRI-based DL model accurately distinguish RRMS from MOGAD.
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.