ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2025
Diagnostic Performance of Fast Brain MRI Compared with Routine Clinical MRI in Patients with Glioma Grades 3 and 4: A Pilot Study.
Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- RANO 2.0: critical updates and practical considerations for radiological assessment in neuro-oncology.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeEPIMix is a fast brain MRI technique not previously investigated in patients with grade 3 and 4 gliomas. This pilot study aimed to investigate the diagnostic performance of EPIMix in the radiological treatment evaluation of adult patients with grade 3 and 4 gliomas compared with routine clinical MRI (rcMRI). MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients with grade 3 and 4 gliomas investigated with rcMRI and EPIMix were retrospectively included in the study. Three readers (R1-R3) participated in the radiological assessment applying the Response Assessment for Neuro-Oncology (RANO 2.0) criteria, of whom two (R1 and R2) independently evaluated EPIMix and later rcMRI by measuring contrast-enhancing and non-contrast-enhancing tumor regions at each follow-up. For cases with discrepant evaluations, an unblinded side-by-side (EPIMix and rcMRI) reading was performed together with a third reader (R3). Comparisons between methods (EPIMix versus rcMRI) were performed using the weighted Cohen κ. The sensitivity and specificity to progressive disease (PD) on a follow-up scan were calculated for EPIMix compared with rcMRI with receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC) to assess the area under the curve (AUC).
resultsOf 35 patients (mean age, 53 years; 31% women), a total of 93 MRIs encompassing 58 follow-up investigations showed PD at a blinded reading in 33% of EPIMix (19/58, R1-2), while in 31% (18/58 exams, R1), and 34% (20/58 exams, R2) of rcMRI. An almost perfect agreement for tumor category assessment was found between EPIMix and rcMRI (EPIMixR1 versus rcMRIR1 κ = 0.96; EPIMixR2 versus rcMRIR2 κ = 0.89). The sensitivity for EPIMix to detect PD was 1.00 (0.81-1.00) for R1 and 0.90 (0.68-0.99) for R2, while the specificity was 0.97 (0.86-1.00) for R1 and R2. The AUC for PD was 0.99 for R1 (EPIMixR1 versus rcMRIR1) and 0.94 for R2 (EPIMixR2 versus rcMRIR2). The
conclusionsIn this pilot study, EPIMix was used as a fast MRI alternative for treatment evaluation of patients with glioma grades 3 and 4, with high but slightly lower diagnostic performance than rcMRI.
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.