Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 556

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

The role of magnetic resonance techniques in understanding and managing multiple sclerosis

Open access
Miller, D.·1998·Brain

Abstract

Magnetic resonance (MR) techniques have had a major impact in the last 10-15 years in understanding and managing multiple sclerosis. This review summarizes the current uses of MR in multiple sclerosis, based on the proceedings of a recent international workshop, under four headings: (i) technical issues; (ii) role in diagnosis; (iii) natural history studies in understanding the disease; (iv) application in clinical trials. The theory and methodology of relevant technical issues is outlined, in order to provide a framework with which to understand the potential and limitations of MR in addressing biological and clinical questions in multiple sclerosis. The principles underlying signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise ratio are discussed, along with the techniques and clinical results for conventional and fast spin echo T2-weighted imaging, fluid-attenuated inversion recovery, detection of blood-brain barrier break down and hypointense lesions on T1-weighted images, magnetization transfer, T2 decay-curve analysis, MR spectroscopy, spinal cord imaging, diffusion imaging, and quantification of lesion load and atrophy. MRI has an extremely valuable role in confirming the clinical diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. T2-weighted brain imaging remains the standard diagnostic tool, but in some instances it is usefully complemented with gadolinium enhancement and spinal imaging. The caveat that the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis remains primarily a clinical one cannot be over-emphasized. Serial MRI studies have added much to our understanding of the natural history and pathophysiology of the disease. Blood-brain barrier breakdown is a consistent early feature of new lesion development in relapsing-remitting and secondary progressive multiple, sclerosis, and this usually correlates with active inflammation and myelin breakdown. A number of the acute MR changes are reversible, but chronic persistent abnormalities in a number of MR parameters, such as reduced N-acetyl aspartate, low magnetization transfer ratios, atrophy and T1-hypointensity, suggest the presence of demyelination and/or axonal degeneration in many chronic lesions. The presence and extent of T2-weighted MRI abnormalities at first presentation with a clinically isolated syndrome suggestive of demyelination strongly predicts the risk of developing clinically definite multiple sclerosis in the next few years. In established multiple sclerosis, however, the correlations between T2 abnormalities and disability are modest. This poor relationship partly relates to the discrepancy between lesion site and function in attempting to correlate locomotor disability with brain MRI findings. However, the correlations between brain lesion load and cognitive dysfunction in multiple sclerosis, whilst more evident, are still modest. A more important limitation is the low pathological specificity of abnormalities seen on T2-weighted images. Stronger correlations have been found between disability and new putative MR markers for demyelination and/or axonal degeneration. Serial studies using multiple MR techniques are now needed to further clarify pathophysiological mechanisms in multiple sclerosis. Serial MR has become an important tool in monitoring treatment efficacy. It provides data which can be readily analysed in a blinded fashion and which directly inspects the pathological evolution; it also enables a rapid and sensitive measure of treatment outcome in early relapsing-remitting and secondary progressive disease. Because of the modest clinical correlations it is, however, still appropriate that the definitive determinant of treatment efficacy remains a clinical one. Further work is needed to address issues of quality control in serial studies, statistical calculation of appropriate sample sizes, and optimization of the nature and frequency of MR outcomes measured.

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 · 10.1093/brain/121.1.3

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 556

Metadata

Authors
Miller, D.
Venue
Brain
Published
1998-01-01
Volume
121
Issue
1
Pages
3-24
ISSN
  • 0006-8950 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2156
OpenAlex
W2140885259
Cited by
556
References
5
FWCI
30.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: The role of magnetic resonance techniques in understanding and managing multiple sclerosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/brain/121.1.3
The paper
Miller, D. (1998). The role of magnetic resonance techniques in understanding and managing multiple sclerosis. Brain. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/121.1.3

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.