Diagnostic Performance of Cortical Lesions and the Central Vein Sign in Multiple Sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Multiple sclerosis (MS) misdiagnosis remains an important issue in clinical practice. Objective: To quantify the performance of cortical lesions (CLs) and central vein sign (CVS) in distinguishing MS from other conditions showing brain lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective, cross-sectional multicenter study, with clinical and MRI data acquired between January 2010 and May 2020. Centralized MRI analysis was conducted between July 2020 and December 2022 by 2 raters blinded to participants' diagnosis. Participants were recruited from 14 European centers and from a multicenter pan-European cohort. Eligible participants had a diagnosis of MS, clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), or non-MS conditions; availability of a brain 3-T MRI scan with at least 1 sequence suitable for CL and CVS assessment; presence of T2-hyperintense white matter lesions (WMLs). A total of 1051 individuals were included with either MS/CIS (n = 599; 386 [64.4%] female; mean [SD] age, 41.5 [12.3] years) or non-MS conditions (including other neuroinflammatory disorders, cerebrovascular disease, migraine, and incidental WMLs in healthy control individuals; n = 452; 302 [66.8%] female; mean [SD] age, 49.2 [14.5] years). Five individuals were excluded due to missing clinical or demographic information (n = 3) or unclear diagnosis (n = 2). Exposures: MS/CIS vs non-MS conditions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) were used to explore the diagnostic performance of CLs and the CVS in isolation and in combination; sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated for various cutoffs. The diagnostic importance of CLs and CVS compared to conventional MRI features (ie, presence of infratentorial, periventricular, and juxtacortical WMLs) was ranked with a random forest model. Results: The presence of CLs and the previously proposed 40% CVS rule had a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for MS of 59.0% (95% CI, 55.1-62.8), 93.6% (95% CI, 91.4-95.6), and 73.9% (95% CI, 71.6-76.3) and 78.7% (95% CI, 75.5-82.0), 86.0% (95% CI, 82.1-89.5), and 81.5% (95% CI, 78.9-83.7), respectively. The diagnostic performance of the CVS (AUC, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.86-0.91]) was superior to that of CLs (AUC, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.75-0.80]; P < .001), and was increased when combining the 2 imaging markers (AUC, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.90-0.94]; P = .04); in the random forest model, both CVS and CLs outperformed the presence of infratentorial, periventricular, and juxtacortical WMLs in supporting MS differential diagnosis. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings in this study suggest that CVS and CLs may be valuable tools to increase the accuracy of MS diagnosis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".