Examining the Clinical Utility of Deep Learning Models for Perivascular Space Segmentation in Alzheimer's Disease
Tang, S.; Younes, K.; Penukonda, E.; Hausle, I.; Thropp, P.; Lupo, J. M.; Tosun, D.
Show abstract
Open-source deep learning models promise scalable quantification of MRI-visible perivascular spaces (PVS), an emerging marker of glymphatic dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Whether these models remain valid when applied to heterogeneous AD cohorts and preserve ground-truth derived biological associations has not been established. We benchmarked five open-source nnU-Net-based PVS segmentation models (nnU-Net T1, nnU-Net T1+FLAIR, mcPVS-Net, MedNet-PVS, ADNI-PVS-Net) against manual labels in 60 multi-site ADNI-3 participants balanced across cognitively unimpaired, mild cognitive impairment, and AD dementia, and in 12 publicly available scans from the VAscular Lesions object-level and segmentatiOn (VALDO) challenge. We evaluated overall, voxel, object, and lesion-wise Dice; stratified performance by region, diagnosis, scanner, PVS severity, and white matter hyperintensity (WMH) burden; and tested whether model-derived PVS burden reproduced ground-truth derived associations with AD-related biomarkers. Despite high internal performance, all models showed a specialist-generalist trade-off: the AD-trained ADNI-PVS-Net achieved highest internal performance (overall Dice = 0.58 {+/-} 0.14) but degraded most externally (Dice [≤] 0.11), while MedNet-PVS and mcPVS-Net generalized externally (Dice 0.27-0.30) but systematically misestimated PVS burden. Models were relatively robust across scanner and diagnosis but inconsistent across PVS severity, and some misclassified up to 32% of WMH as PVS. Notably, only AD-trained models reproduced the expected PVS-amyloid biomarker relationship; other models returned a null result, despite comparable or superior Dice scores. These findings show that internal segmentation accuracy and external generalizability alone do not guarantee downstream inferential validity. Careful model selection and cohort-specific validation against manual labels should precede clinical inference in AD.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- NODDI-derived measures of microstructural integrity in medial temporal lobe white matter pathways are associated with Alzheimer's disease pathology and cognitive outcomes 94%
- Reduced expression of fMRI subsequent memory effects with increasing severity across the Alzheimer’s disease risk spectrum 94%
- Leveraging multimodal neuroimaging and GWAS for identifying modality-level causal pathways to Alzheimer’s disease 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Preliminary Validation of a Structural Magnetic Resonance Imaging Metric for Tracking Dementia-Related Neurodegeneration and Future Decline 95%
- MRI and cognitive scores complement each other to accurately predict Alzheimer’s dementia 2 to 7 years before clinical onset 95%
- Cortical thickness and grey-matter volume anomaly detection in individual MRI scans: Comparison of two methods 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Dysfunction of the episodic memory network in the Alzheimer's disease cascade 95%
- Characterizing spatiotemporal white matter hyperintensity pathophysiology in vivo to disentangle vascular and neurodegenerative contributions 94%
- AI-driven fusion of neurological work-up for assessment of biological Alzheimer’s disease 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.