ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Breast lesions on MRI in mass and non-mass enhancement: Kaiser score and modified Kaiser score + for readers of variable experience.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing ultrasound-based machine learning models for accurate differentiation between sclerosing adenosis and invasive ductal carcinoma.European radiology · 2026Article
- Standardization and advancements efforts in breast diffusion-weighted imaging.Japanese journal of radiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the diagnostic performance of three readers using BI-RADS and Kaiser score (KS) based on mass and non-mass enhancement (NME) lesions.
methodsA total of 630 lesions, 393 malignant and 237 benign, 458 mass and 172 NME, were analyzed. Three radiologists with 3 years, 6 years, and 13 years of experience made diagnoses. 596 cases had diffusion-weighted imaging, and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) was measured. For lesions with ADC > 1.4 × 10
resultsWhen using BI-RADS, AUC was 0.878, 0.915, and 0.941 for mass, and 0.771, 0.838, 0.902 for NME for Reader-1, 2, and 3, respectively, better for mass than for NME. The diagnostic accuracy of KS was improved compared to BI-RADS for less experienced readers. For Reader-1, AUC was increased from 0.878 to 0.916 for mass (p = 0.005) and from 0.771 to 0.822 for NME (p = 0.124). Based on the cut-off value of BI-RADS ≥ 4B and KS ≥ 5 as malignant, the sensitivity of KS by Readers-1 and -2 was significantly higher for both Mass and NME. When ADC was considered to change to modified KS +, the AUC and the accuracy for all three readers were improved, showing higher specificity with slightly degraded sensitivity.
conclusionThe benefit of KS compared to BI-RADS was most noticeable for the less experienced readers in improving sensitivity. Compared to KS, KS + can improve specificity for all three readers. For NME, the KS and KS + criteria need to be further improved. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: KS provides an intuitive method for diagnosing lesions on breast MRI. BI-RADS and KS face greater difficulties in evaluating NME compared to mass lesions. Adding ADC to the KS can improve specificity with slightly degraded sensitivity. KEY POINTS: KS provides an intuitive method for interpreting breast lesions on MRI, most helpful for novice readers. KS, compared to BI-RADS, improved sensitivity in both mass and NME groups for less experienced readers. NME lesions were considered during the development of the KS flowchart, but may need to be better defined.
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.