Performances of experts and automated methods on new multiple sclerosis lesions detection: insights from the MSSeg2 challenge

The assessment of new Multiple Sclerosis (MS) lesions is a time-consuming and difficult task that may lead to an underestimation of patient disease activity. Efficient methods to detect new T2/FLAIR lesions are therefore critical to assist clinicians in this process. In this context, we proposed and organized in 2021 the MSSeg2 challenge aiming at comparing methods segmenting new MS lesions. For this purpose, we built a high-quality dataset of 100 pairs of FLAIR MRI with precise delineation of new MS lesions with a size superior to 3 mm[Formula: see text]. From these 100 pairs of MS patient images from various scanners and French clinical centers, 40 were shared to the challengers before they submitted their methods. 30 methods from 24 international teams were submitted and evaluated on the FLI-IAM dedicated platform on the 60 remaining images. Overall, we observed that even at lesion scale, expert annotations were variable (40% of lesions were annotated by two or fewer experts out of the four). The best expert exhibited a mean F1 score of 0.679 (SD = 0.345) while the best method exhibited a mean F1 score of 0.698 (SD = 0.295) on the 35 patients with new lesions. Moreover, we did not observe evidence of differences between the top-ranked methods and the best expert performances as evaluated by the F1 score (9 methods exhibited no clear evidence against no difference of mean F1). Similarly, we did not observe evidence of difference in performances between the top-ranked methods and the best expert in classifying patients into a 3 categories clinically relevant scale (0 lesion, 1 or 2 lesions and >2 lesions; 21 methods exhibited no clear evidence against no difference of performances with a best classification accuracy of 85 % for both the best expert and the best method). While results from current automated methods still remain perfectible, our results highlight their potential usefulness in detecting new FLAIR MS lesions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Scientific Reports
Published
2026-05-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-52150-1
Primary Topic
Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Performances of experts and automated methods on new multiple sclerosis lesions detection: insights from the MSSeg2 challenge

François-Daniel Ardellier, François Cotton, Quentin Wdowik, Arthur Masson et al.
Scientific Reports
Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
article

Performances of experts and automated methods on new multiple sclerosis lesions detection: insights from the MSSeg2 challenge

François-Daniel Ardellier, François Cotton, Quentin Wdowik, Arthur Masson, Axel Bonnet, Michel Dojat, Olivier Commowick, Romain Casey, Sylvain Rabasté, P. Cloarec, Frédéric Cervenansky, Benoît Combès, Michael Kain, Gilles Edan, Sorina Camarasu-Pop, Anne Kerbrat
article en

Abstract

The assessment of new Multiple Sclerosis (MS) lesions is a time-consuming and difficult task that may lead to an underestimation of patient disease activity. Efficient methods to detect new T2/FLAIR lesions are therefore critical to assist clinicians in this process. In this context, we proposed and organized in 2021 the MSSeg2 challenge aiming at comparing methods segmenting new MS lesions. For this purpose, we built a high-quality dataset of 100 pairs of FLAIR MRI with precise delineation of new MS lesions with a size superior to 3 mm[Formula: see text]. From these 100 pairs of MS patient images from various scanners and French clinical centers, 40 were shared to the challengers before they submitted their methods. 30 methods from 24 international teams were submitted and evaluated on the FLI-IAM dedicated platform on the 60 remaining images. Overall, we observed that even at lesion scale, expert annotations were variable (40% of lesions were annotated by two or fewer experts out of the four). The best expert exhibited a mean F1 score of 0.679 (SD = 0.345) while the best method exhibited a mean F1 score of 0.698 (SD = 0.295) on the 35 patients with new lesions. Moreover, we did not observe evidence of differences between the top-ranked methods and the best expert performances as evaluated by the F1 score (9 methods exhibited no clear evidence against no difference of mean F1). Similarly, we did not observe evidence of difference in performances between the top-ranked methods and the best expert in classifying patients into a 3 categories clinically relevant scale (0 lesion, 1 or 2 lesions and >2 lesions; 21 methods exhibited no clear evidence against no difference of performances with a best classification accuracy of 85 % for both the best expert and the best method). While results from current automated methods still remain perfectible, our results highlight their potential usefulness in detecting new FLAIR MS lesions.

Scientific Reports
Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 (FR), Institut polytechnique de Grenoble (FR), École Normale Supérieure de Lyon (FR), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR), Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies du numérique (FR), Inserm (FR), Lyon College (US), Institut de Recherche en Informatique et Systèmes Aléatoires (FR), Communauté urbaine de Lyon (FR), Hospices Civils de Lyon (FR), Centre Inria de l'Université Grenoble Alpes (FR), Hôpital Pontchaillou (FR), Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg (FR), Laboratoire Jean Kuntzmann (FR), Grenoble Institute of Neurosciences (FR), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Rennes (FR), Université de Rennes (FR), Université de Strasbourg (FR), Université Grenoble Alpes (FR)
Agence Nationale de la Recherche
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.