Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42241436›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Finite sample size errors in the context of multiple error sources in quantitative medical imaging: An evaluation for breast magnetic resonance diffusion-weighted imaging.

Jessica V Eberle, Sebastian Bickelhaupt, Lorenz A Kapsner, Sabine Ohlmeyer, Evelyn Wenkel, Michael Uder, Dominika Skwierawska, Katharina Tkotz, Dominique Hadler, Tristan A Kuder and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Jessica V EberleInstitute of Radiology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5030-1134
Sebastian BickelhauptInstitute of Radiology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.
Lorenz A KapsnerInstitute of Radiology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1866-860X
Sabine OhlmeyerInstitute of Radiology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9163-8840
Evelyn WenkelInstitute of Radiology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.
Michael UderInstitute of Radiology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.
Dominika SkwierawskaInstitute of Radiology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6531-4049
Katharina TkotzInstitute of Radiology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.
Dominique HadlerInstitute of Radiology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.
Tristan A KuderGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Medical Physics in Radiology, Heidelberg, Germany.
Frederik B LaunInstitute of Radiology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSelecting appropriate sample sizes in magnetic resonance imaging studies is a complex process that requires to balance statistical rigor with the practical challenges of measuring a large patient population. In this Institutional Review Board approved study, we evaluate the dominant error types ("finite N" errors versus precision errors) for apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC)-based lesion characterization in diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI) of the female breast in a local dataset and compare our results with current literature.

methodsFirst, in a literature review including 24 published breast DWI studies, the standard error of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve as a measure of sample size-related errors (finite N errors) was estimated for the reported ADC values and compared to the values, derived from expert readings of a university hospital's cohort of 171 patients with suspicious breast lesions. Second, precision errors were assessed based on published analyses of the coefficient of variation of ADC values, measured in breast DWI exams.

resultsFinite N errors were dominant in the in-house study and most of the 24 reviewed studies. The median sample size at which finite N errors and precision errors were equal was determined to be n = 932. DISCUSSION: This analysis of dominant error types shows that the required sample sizes for the considered use case are not unreasonably large and that reducing sample sizes may not be justified based on the merits of the conducted analysis. Nonetheless, incorporating dominant error type assessments into future studies may provide valuable insights for optimizing study design and improving methodological rigor.

Indexed as

BreastBreast NeoplasmsDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingFemaleHumansROC CurveSample Size

Identifiers

PMID42241436
PMCPMC13235925

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.