Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 761

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

Automatic "pipeline" analysis of 3-D MRI data for clinical trials: application to multiple sclerosis

Zijdenbos, A.P., Forghani, R., Evans, A.C.·2002·IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging

Abstract

The quantitative analysis of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data has become increasingly important in both research and clinical studies aiming at human brain development, function, and pathology. Inevitably, the role of quantitative image analysis in the evaluation of drug therapy will increase, driven in part by requirements imposed by regulatory agencies. However, the prohibitive length of time involved and the significant intraand inter-rater variability of the measurements obtained from manual analysis of large MRI databases represent major obstacles to the wider application of quantitative MRI analysis. We have developed a fully automatic "pipeline" image analysis framework and have successfully applied it to a number of large-scale, multicenter studies (more than 1,000 MRI scans). This pipeline system is based on robust image processing algorithms, executed in a parallel, distributed fashion. This paper describes the application of this system to the automatic quantification of multiple sclerosis lesion load in MRI, in the context of a phase III clinical trial. The pipeline results were evaluated through an extensive validation study, revealing that the obtained lesion measurements are statistically indistinguishable from those obtained by trained human observers. Given that intra- and inter-rater measurement variability is eliminated by automatic analysis, this system enhances the ability to detect small treatment effects not readily detectable through conventional analysis techniques. While useful for clinical trial analysis in multiple sclerosis, this system holds widespread potential for applications in other neurological disorders, as well as for the study of neurobiology in general.

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 · 10.1109/tmi.2002.806283

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

Cited by

See all 761

Metadata

Authors
Zijdenbos, A. P., Forghani, R., & Evans, A. C.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
Published
2002-10
Volume
21
Issue
10
Pages
1280-1291
ISSN
0278-0062 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2161913873
Cited by
761
References
5
FWCI
8.61
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

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.