Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 310

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Consensus recommendations for MS cortical lesion scoring using double inversion recovery MRI

Open access
Geurts, J.J.G., Roosendaal, S.D., Calabrese, M., Ciccarelli, O., Agosta, F., Chard, D.T., Gass, A., Huerga, E., Moraal, B., Pareto, D., Rocca, M.A., Wattjes, M.P., Yousry, T.A., Uitdehaag, B.M.J., Barkhof, F.·2011·Neurology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Different double inversion recovery (DIR) sequences are currently used in multiple sclerosis (MS) research centers to visualize cortical lesions, making it difficult to compare published data. This study aimed to formulate consensus recommendations for scoring cortical lesions in patients with MS, using DIR images acquired in 6 European centers according to local protocols. METHODS: Consensus recommendations were formulated and tested in a multinational meeting. RESULTS: Cortical lesions were defined as focal abnormalities on DIR, hyperintense compared to adjacent normal-appearing gray matter, and were not scored unless ≥ 3 pixels in size, based on at least 1.0 mm(2) in-plane resolution. Besides these 2 obligatory criteria, additional, supportive recommendations concerned a priori artifact definition on DIR, use of additional MRI contrasts to verify suspected lesions, and a constant level of displayed image contrast. Robustness of the recommendations was tested in a small dataset of available, heterogeneous DIR images, provided by the different participating centers. An overall moderate agreement was reached when using the proposed recommendations: more than half of the readers agreed on slightly more than half (54%) of the cortical lesions scored, whereas complete agreement was reached in 19.4% of the lesions (usually larger, mixed white matter/gray matter lesions). CONCLUSIONS: Although not designed as a formal interobserver study, the current study suggests that comparing available literature data on cortical lesions may be problematic, and increased consistency in acquisition protocols may improve scoring agreement. Sensitivity and specificity of the proposed recommendations should now be studied in a more formal, prospective, multicenter setting using similar DIR protocols.

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 · 10.1212/wnl.0b013e31820a0cc4

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 310

Metadata

Authors
Geurts, J. J. G., Roosendaal, S. D., Calabrese, M., Ciccarelli, O., Agosta, F., Chard, D. T., Gass, A., Huerga, E., Moraal, B., Pareto, D., Rocca, M. A., Wattjes, M. P., Yousry, T. A., Uitdehaag, B. M. J., & Barkhof, F.
Venue
Neurology
Published
2011-02
Volume
76
Issue
5
Pages
418-424
ISSN
  • 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-632X
OpenAlex
W2005889577
Cited by
310
References
2
FWCI
16.41
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: Consensus recommendations for MS cortical lesion scoring using double inversion recovery MRI. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1212/wnl.0b013e31820a0cc4
The paper
Geurts, J. J. G., Roosendaal, S. D., Calabrese, M., Ciccarelli, O., Agosta, F., Chard, D. T., Gass, A., Huerga, E., Moraal, B., Pareto, D., Rocca, M. A., Wattjes, M. P., Yousry, T. A., Uitdehaag, B. M. J., & Barkhof, F. (2011). Consensus recommendations for MS cortical lesion scoring using double inversion recovery MRI. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0b013e31820a0cc4

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.