ArticleLa Radiologia medica2026
Diagnostic performance of bpMRI versus mpMRI and AI-assisted bpMRI in prostate cancer detection: a multi-reader study.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare biparametric MRI (bpMRI) and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), and to assess the impact of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted bpMRI on diagnostic performance and biopsy-related outcomes in readers with different expertise. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn this retrospective multi-reader study, 173 men referred for prostate mpMRI were evaluated by five radiologists (two experts, three basic readers) who scored bpMRI and mpMRI using PI-RADS v2.1. After a 45-day wash-out, the same readers reinterpreted bpMRI with concurrent AI decision support (available for 127 cases). Diagnostic performance for csPCa (ISUP ≥ 2) and benefit-to-harm ratios were compared across protocols and reader groups.
resultsMean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.820 for bpMRI and 0.819 for mpMRI (difference 0.001), indicating comparable diagnostic performance. In the AI subset, AI increased mean specificity from 59.7% to 67.8% while reducing sensitivity from 90.2% to 84.5%. Biopsy selectivity and efficiency improved (3.9 to 4.6 and 1.7-1.9), particularly in basic readers. The effect was significant in basic readers (McNemar p = 0.012 for sensitivity, p < 0.001 for specificity) but not in experts.
conclusionbpMRI showed comparable performance to mpMRI for csPCa detection in routine practice. AI-assisted bpMRI improved biopsy efficiency in less-experienced readers at the cost of reduced sensitivity, warranting careful consideration of the trade-off between missed cancers and avoided unproductive biopsies.
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.