Cited by 3Cerebrovascular and genetic disordersMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications

Comparing the imaging characteristics of middle-aged patients with multiple sclerosis and CADASIL: A retrospective cross-sectional study

Open access
Hung, Kuang, Chen, Chih-Hao, Wu, Wen-Chau, Su, Jen-Jen, Chen, Ya-Fang, Tang, Sung-Chun·2024·Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders

Abstract

Background Few studies have quantitatively analyzed the imaging disparities between multiple sclerosis (MS) and cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL). We aimed to compare the imaging characteristics of MS and CADASIL in middle-aged patients. Materials and Methods This retrospective study used a single-center database and included patients aged 40–60 years with MS and CADASIL who underwent the designated imaging protocol including 3D T1-weighted imaging and fluid attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), diffusion tensor imaging and susceptibility-weighted imaging between January 2018 and March 2023. Patients with MRI-detected macrobleeds were excluded. Results A total of 27 patients with MS (mean age, 46.7 years ± 4.4, 8 men) and 30 patients with CADASIL (mean age, 51.6 years ± 5.8, 14 men) were included. No significant differences were observed in the Fazekas grades of white matter lesions (WMLs). Patients with CADASIL exhibited greater external capsule involvement (56.7% vs.18.5 %; p = 0.006), whereas the MS group had more lesions in the corpus callosum (81.5% vs. 53.3 %, p = 0.02) and brainstem (74.1% vs. 46.7 %, p = 0.04). The CADASIL group exhibited a higher incidence of microbleeds (12.07 vs. 0.11, p = 0.001). The WMLs in the MS group exhibited a lower T1 lesion/cerebrospinal fluid signal index (2.206 vs. 2.882, p < 0.001). A value of ≤2.57 demonstrated a sensitivity of 92.6 % and a specificity of 90.0 % in differentiating MS. Patients with MS had a thinner corpus callosum (7.18 mm vs 7.86 mm, p = 0.04), while patients with CADASIL showed significantly higher mean diffusivity (0.8776 × 10 –3 vs. 0.7637 × 10 –3 mm2/s, p = 0.03) and lower fractional anisotropy (0.7581 vs. 0.8389, p = 0.04) in the splenium of the corpus callosum. Conclusion Middle-aged patients with MS and CADASIL showed comparable Fazekas grades for WMLs. However, lesion distribution, T1 signal characteristics, and splenic diffusivity changes can help differentiate between MS and CADASIL.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.msard.2024.105856

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • CADASIL may initially lack classic temporal pole or external capsule involvement, leading to misclassification as demyelinating disease.

    “The diagnostic challenge is further compounded by the fact that CADASIL may initially lack classic temporal pole or external capsule involvement, leading to misclassification as demyelinating disease.4”

    From Multiple Sclerosis Misdiagnosis in Cerebral Autosomal Dominant Arteriopathy With Subcortical Infarcts and Leukoencephalopathy (2026) · cites this paper as [4]

    The Results (section 3.2; page not provided) report external capsule involvement in 56.7% of patients with CADASIL, so it was absent in others. The Discussion (section 4) says anterior temporal lobe involvement varies, and the Introduction (section 1) reports that CADASIL has been initially misdiagnosed as MS. This retrospective cross-sectional study does not establish that either feature was absent initially or that its absence led to misclassification. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A subsequent CADASIL diagnosis is often made after progressive ischemic events, characteristic white matter changes, or as clear family history emerges.

    “A subsequent CADASIL diagnosis is often made after progressive ischemic events, characteristic white matter changes, or as clear family history emerges.2-5”

    From Multiple Sclerosis Misdiagnosis in Cerebral Autosomal Dominant Arteriopathy With Subcortical Infarcts and Leukoencephalopathy (2026) · cites this paper as [4]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) identifies stroke and transient ischemic attacks as CADASIL manifestations and white matter lesions as characteristic MRI findings; it also notes that some patients are initially misdiagnosed with MS. The paper does not say that CADASIL is often diagnosed only after progressive ischemic events or as family history emerges. The Study population section (page unavailable) says diagnosis was confirmed by NOTCH3 genetic testing. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • CADASIL can be misdiagnosed as multiple sclerosis.

    “Despite these characteristic features, CADASIL can be misdiagnosed as multiple sclerosis (MS).2-4”
  • Prominent microbleeds favor a small vessel disease diagnosis rather than MS.

    “Furthermore, a high CMB burden (>10) and region-specific CMB distribution were observed only in correctly diagnosed patients, suggesting that prominent microbleeds favor a small vessel disease diagnosis rather than MS.1,4,10”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hung, K., Chen, C.-H., Wu, W.-C., Su, J.-J., Chen, Y.-F., & Tang, S.-C.
Affiliations
  • National Taiwan University Hospital (TW)
  • National Taiwan University (TW)
Corresponding author
  • Su, Jen-Jen
  • Chen, Ya-Fang
Venue
Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-11
Volume
91
Pages
105856
ISSN
2211-0348 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4402168180
Cited by
3
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1
FWCI
0.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC111-2314-B-002-134)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Cerebrovascular and genetic disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Keywords
multiple sclerosis, CADASIL, cerebral small vessel disease, white matter lesions, corpus callosum, microbleeds, corpus callosum thinning, mean diffusivity, fractional anisotropy, diffusion tensor imaging, susceptibility-weighted imaging, FLAIR, differential diagnosis, middle-aged patients
MeSH terms
Adult, Corpus Callosum, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Multiple Sclerosis, Retrospective Studies, CADASIL, Diffusion Tensor Imaging, White Matter

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review