Back

Portable Ultra-Low Field MRI Deep-Learning Algorithms for White Matter Lesion Segmentation Improve Accuracy and Reflect Clinical Disability in Multiple Sclerosis

Thommana, A. A.; Donnay, C. A.; Norato, G.; Gaitan, M. I.; Griffanti, L.; Nair, G.; Reich, D. S.; Okar, S. V.

2026-07-17 neurology
10.64898/2026.07.15.26357954 medRxiv
Show abstract

White matter lesion (WML) identification, assessment, and characterization using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are fundamental for diagnosis and monitoring of multiple sclerosis (MS). Portable ultra-low field (pULF) MRI at 64 millitesla (mT) has been shown to visualize WML with at least one dimension greater than 4 mm. An automated WML segmentation tool catered to pULF-MRI can provide standardized and accurate quantitative measurements of WML volume. In this study, we sought to investigate and compare the accuracy of machine-learning (ML) and deep-learning (DL) pULF MRI segmentation tools. Same-day paired pULF (64mT) and high-field (HF, 3T) MRI scans from 84 adults with MS or suspected-MS (mean age {+/-} SD: 48 {+/-} 13, 62 females) included T2-FLAIR and T1w images. Reference WML segmentations were manually annotated on pULF T2-FLAIR for all scans, with WML confirmed with registered HF T2-FLAIR. HF reference WML segmentations were created. Four automated segmentation methods were applied to pULF scans: Method for Inter-Modal Segmentation Analysis (MIMoSA), an ML algorithm trained on HF WML masks; WMH-SynthSeg, a convolutional neural network model with flexible segmentation capabilities across field strengths and resolution; nnU-Net, a DL algorithm trained on pULF reference WML masks; and Pseudo-Label Assisted nnU-Net (PLAn), a DL algorithm pre-trained on HF reference WML masks and refined with 64mT reference WML masks. Two models were trained with nnU-Net, one using T2-FLAIR images only (nnU-Net-FL) and one using T1w and T2-FLAIR images (nnU-Net-FL/T1). The same was done with PLAn, creating PLAn-FL and PLAn-FL/T1. The six automated WML segmentation outputs were compared to the manual segmentations to determine Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) scores. Associations of WML volume estimates with clinical measures were investigated. DSC scores with pULF reference WML masks from PLAn-FL (DSC mean {+/-} SD: 0.50 {+/-} 0.24) outperformed MIMoSA (0.24 {+/-} 0.20, p < 0.0001), WMH-SynthSeg (0.30 {+/-} 0.18, p < 0.0001), nnU-Net-FL (0.41 {+/-} 0.24, p < 0.0001), and nnU-Net-FL/T1 (0.41 {+/-} 0.26, p = 0.0004). Worse Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and Scripps Neurologic Rating Scale (SNRS) scores were correlated with higher WML volumes in the pULF and HF reference masks. They were also correlated with WML volumes derived from WHM-SynthSeg, nnU-Net-FL, nnU-Net-FL/T1, PLAn-FL, and PLAn-FL/T1, but not MIMoSA. After adjusting for age, WHM-SynthSeg, nnU-Net FL, nnU-Net-FL/T1, PLAn-FL, and PLAn-FL/T1 had significant associations with EDSS and SNRS scores. nnU-Net and PLAn performed best in segmenting WML on pULF-MRI at 64 mT, providing accurate quantitative estimates of WML burden. Moreover, WML volumes estimated by these algorithms were associated with clinical measures of disability, underscoring their utility for reflecting clinical and radiological disease severity. Given pULF-MRI's mobility and lower cost, these findings highlight its relevance in clinical trials, particularly in involving more participants who face logistical constraints and barriers.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
NeuroImage: Clinical
144 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.6%
2
Frontiers in Neurology
102 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
11.9%
3
Human Brain Mapping
329 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
9.8%
4
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
85 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.5%
5
Brain Communications
166 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.5%
50% of probability mass above
6
NeuroImage
903 papers in training set
Top 3%
4.4%
7
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.2%
8
NMR in Biomedicine
28 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.2%
9
Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology
34 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.2%
10
Brain Structure and Function
93 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.8%
11
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 40%
2.8%
12
Imaging Neuroscience
282 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.5%
13
Multiple Sclerosis Journal
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
14
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.7%
15
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
23 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
16
Frontiers in Neuroscience
256 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
17
Neurology
50 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
18
NeuroImage: Reports
29 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
19
Journal of the Neurological Sciences
18 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
20
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.8%
21
Journal of Medical Imaging
11 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%
22
Aperture Neuro
20 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%
23
Annals of Neurology
64 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
24
Brain Informatics
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%