ArticleBMC medical imaging2026
Exploration of prognostic prediction models for renal cell carcinoma using diffusion relaxation correlation spectroscopic imaging.
Article in BMC medical 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe prognosis of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) varies greatly, and accurate prognostic stratification is crucial for optimizing clinical management. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility of predictive models based on diffusion relaxation correlation spectroscopic imaging (DR-CSI) in distinguishing RCC patients with different clinical outcomes.
methodsA total of 127 RCC patients who underwent DR-CSI were enrolled, cohort 1 (48 patients) for model development, and cohort 2 (79 patients with postoperative follow-up) served for validation. DR-CSI results were analyzed using spectral equipartition method combined with multiple feature selection methods and classifiers, generating models from 2*2 to 9*9. Clinicopathological, conventional MR parameters and SSIGN were used for comparison. Diagnostic and prognostic performance were assessed using AUC, DeLong’s test, Kaplan‒Meier analysis, and multivariable regression.
resultsDR-CSI-based models showed excellent interobserver agreement (ICC: 0.86–0.99). In cohort 1, the 6*6 model achieved the highest diagnostic performance for distinguishing metastatic from non-metastatic RCC (AUC = 0.87), significantly outperforming clinicopathological and conventional MR parameters (vs. age, P < 0.001; vs. tumor diameter, P = 0.002; vs. WHO/ISUP grade, P < 0.001; vs. ADC, P = 0.001; vs. T2 value, P < 0.001). In cohort 2, the 6*6 model achieved an AUC of 0.85, which was significantly higher than SSIGN (AUC = 0.73, P = 0.012). This model was also an independent predictor of RCC recurrence (P = 0.005).
conclusionsThe DR-CSI-based 6*6 model provides accurate assessment of RCC aggressiveness and shows great promise for prognostic risk stratification, offering a valuable non-invasive tool for clinical decision-making.
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.