ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
Assessing inter-rater reliability of MRI features in glioma: a multi-radiologist agreement study.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 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.
- Unimodal and Multimodal Deep Learning for Pressure Injury Identification: Scoping Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
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
objectiveTo evaluate the inter-rater reliability of the Visually AcceSAble Rembrandt Images (VASARI) feature set in glioma imaging assessment. MATERIALS AND
methodsThree board-certified radiologists independently analyzed 33 adult type glioma cases (20 glioblastomas, seven astrocytomas, five oligodendrogliomas, and one undefined subtype glioma) using 26 VASARI features and three additional non-VASARI features. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Fleiss’ kappa and Gwet’s AC with conditional confidence intervals. Ordinal weighting was applied to relevant features.
resultsHigh inter-rater reliability was observed for multifocality, enhancement quality, cyst presence, enhanced tumor crossing of midline, and calvarial remodeling. There was poor agreement for diffusion characteristics, hemorrhage presence, involvement of eloquent brain regions, and T1/FLAIR ratio. Several features, including ependymal invasion and tumor size, showed borderline reliability.
conclusionInter-rater reliability varied across the 29 features evaluated for glioma imaging. Eleven features demonstrated high reliability, and four showed poor agreement. The remaining features exhibited varying levels of reliability, with some falling in a borderline range, indicating areas for potential improvement in standardization and assessment. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: N/A.
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.