Evidence Hub

The relationship between quantitative magnetic resonance imaging markers and clinical/cognitive assessments in patients with multiple sclerosis: A cross-sectional study

H. Farahmand, A. Moghadam-Ahmadi, P. Khalili, Houshang Amiri, Alireza Vakilian, Fariba Khatami, Seyed Hamid Pakzad-Moghadam, F. Ayoobi

Current Journal of Neurology, 2025

57 participants

Abstract

Background: This study examines the relationship between quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) markers and clinical/cognitive performance in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), exploring the impact of MRI markers on disability, clinical status, and cognitive function. Methods: This cross-sectional study recruited patients with MS from the MS registry center of Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences, Rafsanjan, Iran. Informed consent was obtained from all participants (8 men, 57 women). Patients with MS underwent neuropsychological and clinical assessments using a word-pair learning task, the Wisconsin Card Sorting test (WCST), Tower of London test (TOL), Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT), Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC), and the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). MRI markers were assessed by the neurologist and radiologist. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: Patients with plaques in the basal ganglia and thalamus had significantly different MSFC (P = 0.038) and PASAT (P = 0.010) scores, while higher EDSS scores correlated with T2-weighted-fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (T2-FLAIR) hyper-intense plaques (P = 0.025). T1 black hole plaques were associated with increased depression (P = 0.015). WCST scores were significantly higher in patients with infratentorial plaques (P = 0.006) and those with T1 black hole lesions (P < 0.05). Total plaque volume positively correlated with EDSS score (r = 0.386, P = 0.002)…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 57 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free