## 3 Results
### Impact of MRI-Derived Biomarkers on Therapeutic Decisions and Prognostic Evaluation
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Global Tau/FLAIR**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**New or Enlarging Tau/FLAIR**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Turk Hypointointinities**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Enhancing Lesions**} \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Lesion Load**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Lesions**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(\"Flick Holes\")**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Enhancing Lesions**} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Answers**} & **Number of** & **Median Value** & **Number of** & **Median Value** & **Median Value** & **Number of** & **Median Value** & **Median Value** & **Median Value** \\  & **Answers** & **(**Personalign**) & **(**Personalign**)** & **(**Personalign**)** & **(**Rangle**)** & **(**Personalign**)** & **(**Personalign**)** & **(**Personalign**)** & **(**Personalign**)** \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{_Here would work prefer to find this information in a radiological report?_} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Fully descriptive**} & 10 (16.1\%) & & **82.9\%** & 15 (24.2\%) & & 8 (12.9\%) & \\  & **Lesion range** & 22 (25.8\%) & 17 (27.4\%) & & 25 (40.3\%) & n.a. & n.a. \\  & **Lesion number** & 18 (25.8\%) & n.a. & 37 (09.7\%) & n.a. & 14 (12.6\%) & n.a. \\  & **Lesion volume in mL** & 11 (17.7\%) & 0 (0.0\%) & 7 (13.5\%) & 3 (48.5\%) & \\  & **Other** & 1 (11.6\%) & 0 (0.0\%) & 0 (0.0\%) & & n.a. \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{_Does this information in streamer your therapeutic decision?_} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Yes**, but only in case of new diagnoses**} & 48 (07.4\%) & 62 (00.0\%) & 38 (61.3\%) & 59 (05.2\%) & \\  & **Yes**, but only in case of new diagnoses** & 13 (21.6\%) & n.a. & n.a. & n.a. & n.a. & n.a. \\  & No & 1 (0.0\%) & 0 (0.0\%) & 24 (03.7\%) & 3 (18.5\%) & \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{_If yes. Please note how much each of these aspects of therapeutic management is affected_} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Cheating the type of therapy**} & 58 (08.5\%) & 4 (1-5) & 57 (01.9\%) & 4 (0-5) & 33 (53.2\%) & 4 (-5) & 55 (08.7\%) & 4 (-5) \\  & **Obsing the type of therapy** & 60 (08.4\%) & 4 (-5) & 59 (05.2\%) & 4 (-5) & 35 (58.7\%) & 4 (-5) \\  & **Modifying the current therapy** & 99 (08.7\%) & 4 (1-5) & 59 (05.2\%) & 4 (-5) & 35 (53.2\%) & 4 (-5) & 56 (00.5\%) & 4 (-5) \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{_Which of the following ways of presenting information would be more useful to work_} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Qualitative evaluation**} & 7 (11.5\%) & & 9 (04.5\%) & 9 (02.1\%) & & 6 (03.5\%) & \\  & **Sentientivaline evaluation (_Lesion range_) & 16 (26.2\%) & & 6 (07.5\%) & 9 (23.7\%) & & n.a. \\  & **Quantitative evaluation (_Lesion number_) & 25 (41.0\%) & n.a. & 33 (03.2\%) & n.a. & 42 (07.2\%) & n.a. \\  & **Quantitative evaluation (_Lesion volume_) & 11 (18.0\%) & & 16 (02.1\%) & 8 (02.1\%) & & 10 (02.7\%) & \\  & **Indifferent** & 2 (0.3\%) & & 0 (0.0\%) & & 0 (0.0\%) & \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{_Does this information in software your prognostic evaluation?_} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Yes**} & 60 (06.8\%) & n.a. & 61 (08.4\%) & n.a. & 53 (08.5\%) & n.a. & 48 (07.4\%) & n.a. \\  & No & 2 (0.2\%) & & 1 (0.6\%) & **9 (04.5\%)** & **14 (02.8\%)** & n.a. \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{_If yes. Which of the following ways of presenting information would be more useful to work_} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Sentivaline evaluation**} & 6 (10.0\%) & 8 (13.1\%) & & 22 (26.0\%) & & 5 (10.6\%) & \\  & **Sentivaline evaluation (_Lesion range_)** & 16 (26.7\%) & & 7 (11.5\%) & 14 (26.8\%) & & n.a. \\  & **Quantitative evaluation (_Lesion number_)** & 21 (53.0\%) & n.a. & 30 (09.2\%) & n.a. & 17 (01.1\%) & n.a. & 33 (07.2\%) & n.a. \\  & **Quantitative evaluation (_Lesion volume_)** & 16 (26.7\%) & & 14 (23.0\%) & & 10 (0.8\%) & & 9 (0.1\%) & \\  & **Indifferent** & 1 (1.7\%) & & 2 (0.3\%) & 0 (0.0\%) & & 0 (0.0\%) & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Impact of lesion metrics on therapeutic and prognostic decisions.