Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,624

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Incidental Findings on Brain MRI in the General Population

Open access
Vernooij, Meike W., Ikram, M. Arfan, Tanghe, Hervé L., Vincent, Arnaud J.P.E., Hofman, Albert, Krestin, Gabriel P., Niessen, Wiro J., Breteler, Monique M.B., van der Lugt, Aad·2007·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain is increasingly used both in research and in clinical medicine, and scanner hardware and MRI sequences are continually being improved. These advances are likely to result in the detection of unexpected, asymptomatic brain abnormalities, such as brain tumors, aneurysms, and subclinical vascular pathologic changes. We conducted a study to determine the prevalence of such incidental brain findings in the general population. METHODS: The subjects were 2000 persons (mean age, 63.3 years; range, 45.7 to 96.7) from the population-based Rotterdam Study in whom high-resolution, structural brain MRI (1.5 T) was performed according to a standardized protocol. Two trained reviewers recorded all brain abnormalities, including asymptomatic brain infarcts. The volume of white-matter lesions was quantified in milliliters with the use of automated postprocessing techniques. Two experienced neuroradiologists reviewed all incidental findings. All diagnoses were based on MRI findings, and additional histologic confirmation was not obtained. RESULTS: Asymptomatic brain infarcts were present in 145 persons (7.2%). Among findings other than infarcts, cerebral aneurysms (1.8%) and benign primary tumors (1.6%), mainly meningiomas, were the most frequent. The prevalence of asymptomatic brain infarcts and meningiomas increased with age, as did the volume of white-matter lesions, whereas aneurysms showed no age-related increase in prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: Incidental brain findings on MRI, including subclinical vascular pathologic changes, are common in the general population. The most frequent are brain infarcts, followed by cerebral aneurysms and benign primary tumors. Information on the natural course of these lesions is needed to inform clinical management.

Overview

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 · 10.1056/nejmoa070972

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 1,624

Metadata

Authors
Vernooij, M. W., Ikram, M. A., Tanghe, H. L., Vincent, A. J. P. E., Hofman, A., Krestin, G. P., Niessen, W. J., Breteler, M. M. B., & van der Lugt, A.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2007-11
Volume
357
Issue
18
Pages
1821-1828
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2147684460
Cited by
1,624
References
5
FWCI
48.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Incidental Findings on Brain MRI in the General Population. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa070972
The paper
Vernooij, M. W., Ikram, M. A., Tanghe, H. L., Vincent, A. J. P. E., Hofman, A., Krestin, G. P., Niessen, W. J., Breteler, M. M. B., & van der Lugt, A. (2007). Incidental Findings on Brain MRI in the General Population. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa070972

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.