ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Application of computed diffusion-weighted imaging in vesical imaging reporting and data system assessment for bladder cancer.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
purposeTo validate computed diffusion-weighted imaging (cDWI) as a time-efficient alternative to acquired DWI (aDWI) in Vesical Imaging-Reporting and Data System (VI-RADS) assessment for bladder cancer, addressing inherent limitations of low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and motion artifacts in conventional high-b-value DWI.
methodsThis retrospective diagnostic accuracy study evaluated 110 patients (mean age 67.8 ± 9.59 years, 100 men) with pathologically confirmed urothelial carcinoma. All underwent 3.0T MRI including DWI sequences (b = 0/700/1400/2000 s/mm²). cDWI images at b = 1400/2000 s/mm² were computationally generated from b = 0/700 s/mm² acquisitions. Two radiologists (2/4 years' experience) independently assessed both aDWI and cDWI sets paired with T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) for VI-RADS scoring. Objective metrics and subjective image quality were compared. Postoperative histopathology served as the reference standard. Statistical analyses included Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, weighted kappa, McNemar test, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis with Delong's test for area under the curve (AUC) comparison (α = 0.05).
resultsAt b = 2000 s/mm², cDWI significantly improved contrast ratio (CR) (all p < 0.001) and subjective lesion clarity (all p < 0.05). However, cDWI demonstrated lower SNR and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) than aDWI across all b-values and readers (all p < 0.001). Substantial inter-reader agreement was confirmed for both sequences (cDWI κ = 0.784; aDWI κ = 0.771). No significant AUC differences were observed for muscle invasion detection (Reader 1: 0.87 vs. 0.86, p = 0.70; Reader 2: 0.92 vs. 0.88, p = 0.052).
conclusioncDWI achieves diagnostic accuracy comparable to aDWI in VI-RADS assessment while enhancing lesion clarity at high b-values, supporting its utility as a time-efficient alternative for bladder cancer MRI staging despite lower objective SNR/CNR metrics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41454947What 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.