ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2023
Analysis of false positive PI-RADS 4 lesions: experience from a single nonacademic center using cognitive fusion.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Utility of Combining Prostate Health Index and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2025Article
- Does Size Matter? A Retrospective Study Analysing the Size of PI-RADS 4 Lesions and Its Associated Prostate Cancer Positivity with Transperineal Prostate Biopsy.Research and reports in urology · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a novel nomogram to avoid unnecessary biopsy in patients with PI-RADS category ≥ 4 lesions and PSA ≤ 20 ng/ml.World journal of urology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe evaluated pathological findings in targeted biopsies of PI-RADS4 and PI-RADS5 lesions, and clinical data that could predict those patients with benign findings. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective study was conducted to summarize the experience from a single nonacademic center using cognitive fusion and a 1.5 or 3.0 Tesla scanner.
resultsWe found a false positive rate of 29 and 3.7% for any cancer in PI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions, respectively. Diverse histologic patterns were observed among target biopsies. At multivariate analysis, size ≤ 6 mm and previous negative biopsy were independent predictors of false positive PI-RADS4 lesions. The small number of false PI-RADS5 lesions precluded further analyses.
conclusionBenign findings are common in PI-RADS4 lesions and most of them do not show obvious glandular or stromal hypercellularity as expected in hyperplastic nodules. Size ≤ 6 mm and previous negative biopsy predict a higher probability of false positive results in patients with PI-RADS 4 lesions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.