Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 223

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evolution of T1 black holes in patients with multiple sclerosis imaged monthly for 4 years

Bagnato, F.·2003·Brain

Abstract

T1 black holes (BHs) on MRIs may represent either areas of oedema or axonal loss in patients with multiple sclerosis. BHs begin as contrast enhancing lesions (CELs) and evolve differently from patient to patient, and within the same patient over time. We analysed BHs formation over a 4-year period. Forty-eight monthly MRIs of nine non-treated multiple sclerosis patients were evaluated for numbers of CELs and BHs. A BH was defined as a hypointense lesion on a T1 pre-contrast image that coincided with a region of high signal intensity on the T2-weighted images. A BH was considered as acute (ABH) when it occurred coincidently with the presence of enhancement and as persisting (PBH) when present after the cessation of enhancement. The present study aimed to analyse: (i) the incidence of CELs and new PBHs, and the accumulation of PBHs; (ii) the relationship between the quantity of the CELs in a given month and the likelihood of accumulating PBHs in the subsequent month; and (iii) the relationship between the duration of CELs and PBHs. Pitman's correlation test evaluated the effect of time on either the increase of CELs and new PBHs or the accumulation of PBHs, while a multiple logistic regression analysis evaluated the relationship between progression of time and CELs, and the increase of PBHs in a multivariate model. The relationship between the enhancing lesions duration and the PBHs duration, or the time to revert back to an isointense lesion was analysed using Kaplan-Meier survival models. PBHs accumulated (P < 0.001) in all patients, but the formation of new PBHs increased in four patients (P < or = 0.007) in conjunction with an increase in either the quantity of CELs (P < 0.001, for two patients) or the proportion of CELs turning into PBHs (P < or = 0.02, for two patients). Logistic regression analysis showed that neither progression of time nor the number of CELs in a given month were able to predict the probability of increasing the number of PBHs in the subsequent month in any patient. Out of 397 ABHs, 55.7% evolved to a PBH. The duration of PBHs correlated with the duration of enhancement. PBHs preceded by CELs observable on a single MRI persisted for a shorter time (P < 0.002) than those preceded by CELs visible on > or =2 monthly MRIs. The formation of a new PBH was found to be related to CELs activity; however, duration of PBHs is most likely a consequence of the duration of the enhancement.

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/awg182

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 223

Metadata

Authors
Bagnato, F.
Venue
Brain
Published
2003-06-04
Volume
126
Issue
8
Pages
1782-1789
ISSN
  • 0006-8950 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2156
OpenAlex
W2129456656
Cited by
223
References
3
FWCI
6.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Evolution of T1 black holes in patients with multiple sclerosis imaged monthly for 4 years. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/brain/awg182
The paper
Bagnato, F. (2003). Evolution of T1 black holes in patients with multiple sclerosis imaged monthly for 4 years. Brain. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awg182

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.