ArticleInsights into imaging2026
Easy-to-use background score for routine prostate MRI.
Article in Insights into imaging, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo propose an easy-to-use binary scoring system for background signal intensity changes in prostate MRI that may affect diagnostic image interpretation and to evaluate its impact on cancer detection. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective single-center study included 200 patients. Four readers independently assigned background scores of A or B according to the proposed scoring system and assessed the presence or absence of cancer. Light's kappa was used to evaluate inter-reader agreement on the score and on the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer in dependence of the score. Sensitivity and specificity in detecting clinically significant cancer were assessed relative to histology as the gold standard.
resultsDue to suboptimal image quality according to the PI-QUAL score, 45 patients were secondarily excluded. Inter-reader agreement on the score was substantial (kappa = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.54-0.71). Inter-reader agreement on the presence of cancer was higher for a background score A (kappa = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.38-0.61) than B (kappa = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.20-0.51). Sensitivity in detecting cancer was high regardless of the background score (86.61% and 89.42% for scores A and B), while specificity decreased markedly in readers with little experience (53.47% and 43.75% for scores A and B), potentially increasing false positives.
conclusionAfter further validation, the easy-to-use binary background score could enable routine evaluation of normal changes in the peripheral zone, identifying cases with increased false-positive risk among inexperienced readers. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The easy-to-use binary background score for daily clinical routine allows the communication of potential diagnostic uncertainties in mpMRI image interpretation of the prostate that arise due to normal changes in the peripheral zone, especially for less experienced readers. KEY POINTS: An easy-to-use binary scoring system for addressing background signal intensity changes in the prostate is proposed for MRI interpretation. Inter-reader agreement of the score was substantial, and agreement between readers regarding the presence or absence of cancer was higher for a background score of A than B. The background score could be used to communicate a potential diagnostic uncertainty related to the normal change in the peripheral zone, particularly for less experienced readers.
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.