ReviewCancers2026
Artificial Intelligence-Enhanced Multiparametric MRI and VI-RADS in Bladder Cancer: Current Evidence, Clinical Opportunities and Barriers to Translation.
Review in Cancers, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate distinction between non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) and muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) remains the key local staging problem in bladder cancer because treatment intensity, timing of radical therapy, and suitability for bladder-preserving strategies all depend on it. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and the Vesical Imaging-Reporting and Data System (VI-RADS) now provide a standardized imaging framework for local staging and increasingly support MRI-first clinical pathways. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as an additional decision-support layer, but the evidence base remains methodologically uneven. In this structured narrative review, we synthesized peer-reviewed literature from January 2020 to March 2026, while retaining foundational VI-RADS studies from 2018 to 2019, and prioritized guideline documents, meta-analyses, prospective cohorts, multicenter and externally validated AI studies, response-assessment studies, and papers addressing implementation and reporting quality. Current evidence shows that radiomics and deep learning models can achieve high discrimination for MIBC detection on MRI, and that the most plausible incremental value of AI lies in equivocal VI-RADS lesions, reader support outside high-volume expert settings, and multimodal risk stratification. However, most studies remain retrospective, highly selected, segmentation-dependent, and vulnerable to reference-standard bias, domain shift, and poor calibration. This review therefore emphasizes several translational issues that are often underreported: lesion-level versus patient-level inference, the distortive effect of TURBT-based labels, the need to evaluate false-negative consequences in VI-RADS 3 tumors, and the distinction between diagnostic support and broader pathway redesign. We also discuss response assessment, nacVI-RADS, segmentation automation, multicenter and federated infrastructure, workflow ownership, and the limits of imaging-only models in a biologically heterogeneous disease. The most credible near-term role of AI is not autonomous diagnosis, but augmentation of standardized mpMRI and VI-RADS within multidisciplinary care. Future progress will depend on prospective utility studies, site-held-out validation, transparent reporting, and the integration of imaging with molecular and cellular heterogeneity through radiogenomic and multi-omics approaches.
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.