All talks & lectures

Debate ·

MRI phenotypes will replace clinical phenotypes in multiple sclerosis — Pro

A debate case for using MRI-derived patterns to describe multiple sclerosis beyond conventional clinical labels.

Advanced MRI Milan · Milan, Italy

A web sketch of the deck’s central idea
Delivered
Event
Advanced MRI Milan
Place
Milan, Italy
Format
Debate
Source deck
19 slides

From the slides

Deck notes

This debate contribution made the case for MRI-derived phenotypes in multiple sclerosis. It set conventional clinical labels against spatial patterns of atrophy and data-driven disease subtypes.

The question

Can MRI reveal clinically useful disease structure that is hidden by relapse- and progression-based labels?

Deck outline

  • Heterogeneity within multiple sclerosis
  • The limits of conventional disease classification
  • Regional patterns of grey-matter atrophy
  • Data-driven MRI subtypes and their evolution
  • Associations between MRI patterns and disability risk
  • Points for discussion

Take-away

MRI patterns can expose meaningful differences between patients that broad clinical phenotypes do not capture, making them useful for stratification.

Original deck

Slide by slide

Read the 19-slide presentation in order, or use the index to jump.

  1. Slide 01

    MRI phenotypes will replace clinical phenotypes in multiple sclerosis Pro

    Slide 1: MRI phenotypes will replace clinical phenotypes in multiple sclerosis ProOpen full-size slide

    Arman Eshaghi, MD, PhD

    UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, London, United Kingdom

  2. Slide 02

    Disclosures

    Slide 2: DisclosuresOpen full-size slide

    Serves on the Editorial board of Neurology.

    Received research grant from International Progressive MS Alliance, Innovate UK, Biogen, and Roche.

    Received travel support from National MS Society.

    Cofounder of Queen Square Analytics Ltd.

  3. Slide 03

    Agenda

    Slide 3: AgendaOpen full-size slide
    • Phenotypes
    • Paradigm shift: Symptom based  Symptom agnostic
    • Emerging tools for subtyping
    • Staging novel subtypes
    • Limitations and future directions
  4. Slide 16

    MRI and clinical

    Slide 16: MRI and clinicalOpen full-size slide

    Clinical only

    MRI only

    Years

    Hazard ratio:1.51

    Hazard ratio: 1.31

    Hazard ratio: 1.21

  5. Slide 17

    Summary

    Slide 17: SummaryOpen full-size slide

    Biomarker-driven classification

    Disease understanding

    Prognostic value

    Predictive value

    Limitations

  6. Slide 19

    Points for discussion

    Slide 19: Points for discussionOpen full-size slide

    Do we treat MRIs?

    Validation at the point-of-care (clinical practice)

    MRI specificity to pathology

    Do data-driven phenotypes add value to 2013 Lublin modifiers?