Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 560

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 110 of the 110 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessment of lesions on magnetic resonance imaging in multiple sclerosis: practical guidelines

Open access
Filippi, Massimo, Preziosa, Paolo, Banwell, Brenda L, Barkhof, Frederik, Ciccarelli, Olga, De Stefano, Nicola, Geurts, Jeroen J G, Paul, Friedemann, Reich, Daniel S, Toosy, Ahmed T, Traboulsee, Anthony, Wattjes, Mike P, Yousry, Tarek A, Gass, Achim, Lubetzki, Catherine, Weinshenker, Brian G, Rocca, Maria A·2019·Brain

Abstract

MRI has improved the diagnostic work-up of multiple sclerosis, but inappropriate image interpretation and application of MRI diagnostic criteria contribute to misdiagnosis. Some diseases, now recognized as conditions distinct from multiple sclerosis, may satisfy the MRI criteria for multiple sclerosis (e.g. neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders, Susac syndrome), thus making the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis more challenging, especially if biomarker testing (such as serum anti-AQP4 antibodies) is not informative. Improvements in MRI technology contribute and promise to better define the typical features of multiple sclerosis lesions (e.g. juxtacortical and periventricular location, cortical involvement). Greater understanding of some key aspects of multiple sclerosis pathobiology has allowed the identification of characteristics more specific to multiple sclerosis (e.g. central vein sign, subpial demyelination and lesional rims), which are not included in the current multiple sclerosis diagnostic criteria. In this review, we provide the clinicians and researchers with a practical guide to enhance the proper recognition of multiple sclerosis lesions, including a thorough definition and illustration of typical MRI features, as well as a discussion of red flags suggestive of alternative diagnoses. We also discuss the possible place of emerging qualitative features of lesions which may become important in the near future.

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/awz144

Cites

110 of 110 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 110 references

Cited by

See all 560

Metadata

Authors
Filippi, M., Preziosa, P., Banwell, B. L., Barkhof, F., Ciccarelli, O., De Stefano, N., Geurts, J. J. G., Paul, F., Reich, D. S., Toosy, A. T., Traboulsee, A., Wattjes, M. P., Yousry, T. A., Gass, A., Lubetzki, C., Weinshenker, B. G., & Rocca, M. A.
Venue
Brain
Published
2019-06-17
Volume
142
Issue
7
Pages
1858-1875
ISSN
  • 0006-8950 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2156
OpenAlex
W2951680115
Cited by
560
References
110
FWCI
35.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Assessment of lesions on magnetic resonance imaging in multiple sclerosis: practical guidelines. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/brain/awz144
The paper
Filippi, M., Preziosa, P., Banwell, B. L., Barkhof, F., Ciccarelli, O., De Stefano, N., Geurts, J. J. G., Paul, F., Reich, D. S., Toosy, A. T., Traboulsee, A., Wattjes, M. P., Yousry, T. A., Gass, A., Lubetzki, C., Weinshenker, B. G., & Rocca, M. A. (2019). Assessment of lesions on magnetic resonance imaging in multiple sclerosis: practical guidelines. Brain. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awz144

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.