Home › Research › Digital health tools
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 JM, Tosun D, the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative.. medRxiv, 2026-09-28
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Tang, S., Younes, K., Penukonda, E., Hausle, I., Thropp, P., Lupo, J. M., et al. (2026). Examining the Clinical Utility of Deep Learning Models for Perivascular Space Segmentation in Alzheimer’s Disease. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.09.27.26363725
Vancouver
Tang S, Younes K, Penukonda E, Hausle I, Thropp P, Lupo JM, et al. Examining the Clinical Utility of Deep Learning Models for Perivascular Space Segmentation in Alzheimer’s Disease. medRxiv. 2026. doi:10.64898/2026.09.27.26363725.
BibTeX
@article{tang2026-a1525cf3,
author = {Tang, S. and Younes, K. and Penukonda, E. and Hausle, I. and Thropp, P. and Lupo, J. M. and Tosun, D. and {the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative}},
title = {{Examining the Clinical Utility of Deep Learning Models for Perivascular Space Segmentation in Alzheimer’s Disease}},
journal = {medRxiv},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.64898/2026.09.27.26363725},
url = {https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.09.27.26363725}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- 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.
- 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.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →
Study details
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 24 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 15 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 24 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (medRxiv) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 15 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 15 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 24 out of 100. |
| Total | 24 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Digital health tools
Also tagged “convolutional”
205 studies in the library carry the topic tag “convolutional”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 205 tagged studies.