ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Assessing breast MRI image quality: the bMRI-QUAL scoring system.
Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reply to the Letter to the Editor: Assessing breast MRI image quality-the bMRI-QUAL scoring system.European radiology · 2026Article
- Letter to the Editor: Assessing breast MRI image quality-the bMRI-QUAL scoring system.European radiology · 2026Article
- Toward a standardized and interoperable imaging biomarker catalog.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe performance of breast MRI (bMRI) depends on image quality, varying due to patient-related or technical/protocol factors. The resulting artifacts can heavily reduce sensitivity and specificity. We developed a bMRI quality scoring system (bMRI-QUAL) for the bMRI standard protocol. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo independent readers with 3 years of experience evaluated 133 consecutive 1.5-T examinations (sample size calculated to ensure reproducibility). Each sequence was rated on a 4-point scale: 0 = not diagnostic; 1 = relevant artifacts with conserved diagnostic value; 2 = slight artifacts with conserved diagnostic value; 3 = excellent image quality. Each score was weighted in the following formula: (T2-weighted * 1) + (diffusion weighted imaging with b = 0 * 0.5) + (apparent diffusion coefficient maps * 0.5) + (T1-weighted-precontrast * 1) + (T1-weighted-postcontrast * 2) + (T1-weighted-subtracted * 3). This sum was divided by 2.4, obtaining a 0-to-10 global score (GS), with < 6 considered insufficient.
resultsThe average GS between the two readers was 8.3 ± 1.0, with 102/133 examinations (76.7%) receiving a score ≥ 7 from both readers. Only one case (0.8%) was scored < 6 by both readers. The Bland-Altman analysis showed bias of -0.12, with limits of agreement ranging from -2.52 to +2.29. The difference in GS between the two readers (coverage probability) was 72/133 (54.1%) within ±1 and 123/133 (92.5%) within ±2. Coverage probability within ±1 point ranged from 94.0% to 99.2% across sequences. Average evaluation time/examination was 3 min.
conclusionsbMRI-QUAL is a reproducible quality scoring system. Breast MRI image quality at a tertiary cancer center was good to excellent in approximately 80% of cases. KEY POINTS: QuestionBreast MRI image quality varies widely and can compromise diagnostic accuracy. A standardized, clinically weighted scoring system is needed to guide repeat-scan decisions and facilitate quality assurance. FindingsIn 133 breast MRIs, the bMRI-QUAL 0-to-10 scoring system proved to be reproducible. Readers assigned a good-to-excellent mean score (8.3) with a 3-min evaluation time. Clinical relevancebMRI-QUAL provides a relatively fast and reproducible evaluation of breast MRI image quality, with each sequence weighted according to its clinical relevance for lesion detection/characterization. It can support decision-making regarding insufficient image quality and facilitate quality assurance protocols.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41824041What 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.