@entity75 in XXXX .

@entity1652 @entity1 @entity15 @entity75
BACKGROUND: Differentiating @entity1652 ( @entity1652 ) from @entity15 ( @entity15 ) is a real challenge in the clinical field. In the past, @entity1652 (not @entity15 ), was inferred when abnormality was not detected in the brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Recently, some studies have reported abnormalities in the brain MRIs of @entity1652 , but only few among the Asian population. The aim of this study was to evaluate the frequency of brain MRI among Korean @entity1652 @entity1 and characterize findings that might be helpful to distinguish @entity1652 from @entity15 . METHODS: Medical records, @entity1652 -IgG, and brain MRI of 17 @entity1 diagnosed with @entity1652 by the revised diagnostic criteria of Wingerchuk et al. (2006) [6] from 2008 to 2010, were reviewed. RESULTS: 11 out of 17 @entity1 (64.7%) had abnormal MRI findings. More than two lesions were detected in most @entity1 . The majority of @entity1 with @entity75 showed nonspecific (5 @entity1 ) or atypical (6 @entity1 ) findings. Cerebral white matter was most frequently involved (58.8%). 3 @entity1 (17.6%) involved corpus callosum, 4 (23.5%) with internal capsule, 2 (11.8%) with cerebellum, and 3 (17.6%) with brainstem. There were 5 (29.4%) @entity1 who met the Paty et al. criteria (1988) [15] and 3 @entity1 (35.3%) who met the @entity15 ( @entity15 ) spatial distribution diagnostic criteria of Barkhof et al. (1997) [14] in their brain MRI. CONCLUSIONS: @entity75 have been frequently found among Korean @entity1652 @entity1 and the frequencies have been reported to be higher than that of Caucasians. Current @entity15 spatial distribution criteria, such as Paty et al. (1988) [15] or Barkhof et al. (1997) [14], are not sufficient to discriminate @entity1652 from @entity15 in brain MRI findings. Our results will provide valuable information that would be useful in establishing future revising criteria for @entity1652 .
