<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><submitter>Rahmani M</submitter><funding>the James S. McDonnell Foundation</funding><funding>McDonnell Center for Systems Neuroscience</funding><funding>NIA NIH HHS</funding><funding>Barnes-Jewish Hospital Foundation</funding><pagination>1310-1322</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC11582091</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>18(5)</volume><pubmed_abstract>This systematic review examines the prevalence, underlying mechanisms, cohort characteristics, evaluation criteria, and cohort types in white matter hyperintensity (WMH) pipeline and implementation literature spanning the last two decades. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, we categorized WMH segmentation tools based on their methodologies from January 1, 2000, to November 18, 2022. Inclusion criteria involved articles using openly available techniques with detailed descriptions, focusing on WMH as a primary outcome. Our analysis identified 1007 visual rating scales, 118 pipeline development articles, and 509 implementation articles. These studies predominantly explored aging, dementia, psychiatric disorders, and small vessel d</pubmed_abstract><journal>Brain imaging and behavior</journal><pubmed_title>Evolution of white matter hyperintensity segmentation methods and implementation over the past two decades; an incomplete shift towards deep learning.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC11582091</pmcid><funding_grant_id>U24 AG072122</funding_grant_id><pubmed_authors>Shishegar R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Burnham S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>O'Brien E</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Cognition</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Harari O</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Fedyashov V</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Vlassenko AG</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Marcus D</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Porter T</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Dore V</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Rowe C</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Imaging</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Villemagne V</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Fowler C</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Strain JF</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Genetics</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Lee JM</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>CoxDoecke TJ</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Laws S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Perrin R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Xia Y</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Goyal MS</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Biostats, Database and Bioinformatics</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Rahmani M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Cerebrovascular Disease (CVD) Risk</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Hippocampal Sclerosis (HS-TDP43) Risk</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Bateman R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Sohrabi H</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Jack C</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>CSF and Blood</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Luckett PH</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Cruchaga C</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Martins R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Li S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Tosun D</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Xiong C</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Aschenbrenner A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Mussoumzadeh P</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Womack K</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Kukull W</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Bourgeat P</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Neuropathology</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Maruff P</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Saykin A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Dierker D</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>DIAN</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Yassi N</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Li QX</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Morris J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Yaeger L</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Owens C</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Mayo CJ</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Raniga P</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Shaw L</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Fripp J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>ADOPIC, ADNI Investigators</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Hassenstab J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Jafri H</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Masters CL</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Weiner M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>McDade E</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Schindler S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Morris JC</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Goudey B</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Roberts B</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>NACC</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Robertson J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Lim YY</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Benzinger TLS</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Markovic S</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Evolution of white matter hyperintensity segmentation methods and implementation over the past two decades; an incomplete shift towards deep learning.</name><description>This systematic review examines the prevalence, underlying mechanisms, cohort characteristics, evaluation criteria, and cohort types in white matter hyperintensity (WMH) pipeline and implementation literature spanning the last two decades. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, we categorized WMH segmentation tools based on their methodologies from January 1, 2000, to November 18, 2022. Inclusion criteria involved articles using openly available techniques with detailed descriptions, focusing on WMH as a primary outcome. Our analysis identified 1007 visual rating scales, 118 pipeline development articles, and 509 implementation articles. These studies predominantly explored aging, dementia, psychiatric disorders, and small vessel d</description><dates><release>2024-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2024 Oct</publication><modification>2025-04-04T13:41:25.119Z</modification><creation>2025-04-04T13:41:25.119Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC11582091</accession><cross_references><pubmed>39083144</pubmed><doi>10.1007/s11682-024-00902-w</doi></cross_references></HashMap>