ReviewRadiology. Imaging cancer2026
A Framework for MRI Characterization of Intracranial Metastatic Disease.
Review in Radiology. Imaging cancer, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intracranial metastases (IM) are far more common than primary malignant brain tumors, yet remain understudied, representing an important unmet clinical need. Although patients with IM have historically been excluded from clinical trials, thus limiting assessment of intracranial treatment efficacy, their inclusion is increasing; however, patients with suspected leptomeningeal metastatic disease (LMD) remain commonly excluded, likely due to poorer prognosis and anticipated limited treatment response. Despite established treatment response criteria for confirmed LMD, there is limited guidance on how LMD should be diagnosed or excluded in broader IM trials, creating substantial risk for variability and misclassification. This article addresses the gap by proposing MRI-based criteria for classifying IM appearances with respect to LMD suspicion, focusing on the exclusion of LMD, illustrated with real patient examples. IM-related MRI findings are categorized into three groups:
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.