What you see is not always what you get—MRI-based ganglionic eminence volumetry challenges subjective assessment in CNS anomalies - Takeaways - MDSpire
Coming Soon: Introducing MDSpire News. Learn more
Conexiant’s news site is now MDSpire News. Learn more

MRI Analysis of Ganglionic Eminence Volume Reveals Limitations of Subjective Evaluations in Central Nervous System Abnormalities

  • By

  • Marlene Stuempflen

  • Patric Kienast

  • Victor U. Schmidbauer

  • Michael Weber

  • Athena Taymourtash

  • Johannes Tischer

  • Tim Dorittke

  • Julia Binder

  • Daniela Prayer

  • Gregor Kasprian

  • May 21, 2026

Share

  • 1

    The ganglionic eminence (GE) is crucial for the development of inhibitory interneurons and projection neurons in the fetal brain.

  • 2

    Structural anomalies in the GE can lead to severe developmental issues, including developmental delay and therapy-resistant epilepsy.

  • 3

    Subjective assessment of the GE in fetal MRI may overlook subtle anomalies due to its changing shape and size.

  • 4

    A study utilized three-dimensional segmentation and volumetric measurements to analyze the GE in patients with structural CNS anomalies.

  • 5

    The study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of subjective assessments and identify structural anomalies complicating GE evaluations.

Original Source(s)

What you see is not always what you get—MRI-based ganglionic eminence volumetry challenges subjective assessment in CNS anomalies

  • by Marlene Stuempflen, Patric Kienast, Victor U. Schmidbauer, Michael Weber, Athena Taymourtash, Johannes Tischer, Tim Dorittke, Julia Binder, Daniela Prayer, Gregor Kasprian

  • May 21, 2026

Related Content

Aligning prediction targets before ranking diaphragm ultrasound parameters in AECOPD

AI cuts lesion measurement time by 34%

Automated lesion measurements increased agreement on treatment response, although expert-generated proposals were accepted more often and required fewer adjustments.

Ipsilateral reference may reduce THA fluoroscopy

Operative-time–adjusted findings favored the ipsilateral technique, while absolute fluoroscopy time and radiation exposure remained similar between approaches.