ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Development and validation of a deep learning-based automatic segmentation and classification of cerebral white matter hyperintensities.
Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence for white matter hyperintensity segmentation: performance, determinants, and clinical implications.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWhite matter hyperintensities (WMH) represent neuroimaging markers of cerebral small vessel disease. We aimed to develop and validate a deep learning-based simultaneous, automatic WMH segmentation and classification model in patients with cognitive impairment. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included images from consecutive patients with cognitive impairment from a tertiary hospital. A segmentation model was trained and tuned on 448 and 149 subjects. A classification compartment inherited from the segmentation model, utilizing the multi-task multiple instance learning framework (MTMIL), was trained and tuned on 1186 and 394 subjects. Tests of segmentation and classification tasks were performed on 149 and 394 subjects in the internal testing dataset and 100 subjects in the external dataset. We evaluated five different models to select the segmentation branch. Classification according to the Fazekas scale used three categories (normal/mild, moderate, severe), and locations were separately reported as periventricular and deep WMH. For classification evaluation, three experienced neuroradiologists evaluated test datasets.
resultsBetween January 2016 and December 2019, 1974 consecutive patients (mean age 71.1 ± 9.7) were included. Dice score performance of the UNet with Resnet-34 encoder model on internal and external testing datasets was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.88-0.89) and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.84-0.86) for single-class segmentation, and 0.77 (95% CI: 0.76-0.79) and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.71-0.74) for multi-class segmentation. The accuracy of the Fazekas scale classification model was 0.88 and 0.87 at periventricular and deep WMH with internal datasets and 0.68 and 0.75 with external datasets.
conclusionThese results demonstrate the high segmentation and classification performance of our models and their potential for deployment as accurate diagnostic support tools for quantified evaluation of WMH. KEY POINTS: Question We developed a deep learning-based, simultaneous, automatic white matter hyperintensity (WMH) segmentation and classification model using data from patients with cognitive impairment. Findings Segmentation model achieved Dice scores of 0.72-0.88 for single-class and multi-class segmentation. Fazekas score classification accuracy ranged from 0.68 to 0.88 for periventricular/deep WMH. Clinical relevance Our study demonstrated high segmentation and classification performance of deep learning-based models and potential for deployment as accurate diagnostic support tools for quantified evaluation of white matter hyperintensities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41398110What 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.