Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40996515›Full record

ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026

Evaluating the impact of reader experience on PI-RADS 3 of version 2.1 scoring concordance in multiparametric prostate MRI: a single-center analysis.

Mingze He, Ramin Rzayev, Natalia Serova, Vladislav Petov, Leonid Rapoport, Mikhail Enikeev, Alexandra Tyan, Evgeny Kondratyev, Natalia Karelskaya, Valeriya Tikhonova and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Mingze HeInstitute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Ramin RzayevUniversity Clinical Hospital No. 2, Department of Radiology, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Natalia SerovaDepartment of Radiology and Radiation Therapy, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Vladislav PetovInstitute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Leonid RapoportInstitute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Mikhail EnikeevInstitute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Alexandra TyanUniversity Clinical Hospital No. 2, Department of Radiology, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Evgeny KondratyevA.V. Vishnevsky National Medical Research Center of Surgery, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Natalia KarelskayaA.V. Vishnevsky National Medical Research Center of Surgery, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Valeriya TikhonovaUniversity Clinical Hospital No. 2, Department of Radiology, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Lev VotyakovUniversity Clinical Hospital No. 2, Department of Radiology, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Ivan ChernenkiyInstitute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Zeting ZhouPavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation. petermz97@icloud.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePI-RADS 3 lesions remain a "grey-zone" with an equivocal category on prostate mpMRI, complicating biopsy decisions and treatment strategies. This study aimed to investigate how radiologist experience affects the interpretation of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score 3 of version 2.1.

methodsA retrospective study involved three radiologists of different experience levels independently evaluating mpMRI images with PI-RADS 3 scores and confirmed pathological outcomes. From January 2023 to April 2025, 673 patient cases were reviewed. Excluding cases with prior interventions, non-PI-RADS 3 scores, or lacking pathological confirmation, 133 patients were analyzed. Inter-reader reliability was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistic (k), and correlations between PI-RADS and Gleason scores were analyzed with Kendall's tau (t). Diagnostic performance metrics including the area under the ROC curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy were calculated.

resultsMedian k score among all radiologist pairs was 0.149. The correlation between PI-RADS and Gleason scores was weakly positive but not statistically significant (t = 0.197). Senior Reader 2 demonstrated the highest AUC (0.748), accuracy (63.2%), PPV (48.2%), NPV (88.0%), and sensitivity (86.97%). Expert Reader 1 had the highest specificity (56.3%).

conclusionThree assigned radiologists with different experience levels achieved generally poor inter‑reader agreement using the PI‑RADS version 2.1 guideline, and varying expertise did not significantly influence PI-RADS 3 evaluations. Future work should refine interpretation flows, adjunct decision rules, test weighted agreement statistics, and validate these findings in larger, multicenter cohorts.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceMultiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsAgedHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingObserver VariationProstateRadiology Information SystemsReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityInter-reader variabilityMultiparametric MRIPI-RADS version 2.1Prostate cancer

Identifiers

PMID40996515

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.