ArticleInsights into imaging2026
Inter-reader agreement in multimodality imaging of carotid plaque-RADS: considerations for modality selection.
Article in Insights into imaging, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesPlaque-RADS was recently developed to standardize reporting and risk stratification of carotid plaques. This study aimed to evaluate inter-reader agreement of Plaque-RADS across US, CTA, and MRI, and to assess the impact of reader experience. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn 250 patients with carotid US, CTA, and MRI, nine readers (three per modality, stratified by experience) independently assessed plaque features and Plaque-RADS scores. Inter-reader agreement was analyzed using κ statistics and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Learning curves were generated by comparing reader performance against MRI expert reference across five sequential case subsets.
resultsAmong 962 plaques and 25 normal arteries, inter-modality agreement for overall Plaque-RADS was moderate to substantial (κ, 0.578-0.758). Agreement was almost perfect for RADS 1-2 (κ, 0.814-0.883) but lower for RADS 3-4 (κ, 0.427-0.709). US, CTA, and MRI demonstrated substantial to almost perfect agreement in assessing plaque presence and maximum wall thickness (κ/ICC, 0.697-0.878). CTA and MRI experts demonstrated substantial to almost perfect agreement in ulcer detection (κ, 0.880) and intraluminal thrombus (κ, 0.787), but moderate agreement in intraplaque hemorrhage (κ, 0.578). Regarding reader experience, all intermediate and expert readers across US, CTA, and MRI achieved substantial to almost perfect agreement in overall and different categories of RADS scoring (κ/ICC, 0.624-0.954). Learning curve analysis confirmed that all readers improved with training, with the most pronounced gains observed in US beginners.
conclusionPlaque-RADS is reliable for low-risk plaques across modalities, whereas accurate categorization of high‑risk plaques requires experienced readers and advanced imaging. These findings may help inform stratified imaging decisions. KEY POINTS: Question Does inter‑reader agreement for the Carotid Plaque‑RADS score differ across ultrasound, CTA, and MRI, and how does reader experience affect consistency? Findings Plaque‑RADS showed excellent agreement for low‑risk plaques across all modalities. High‑risk plaques required advanced imaging and experienced readers; structured training improved performance, especially for ultrasound. Critical Relevance Statement This study systematically compares Plaque‑RADS agreement across ultrasound, CTA, and MRI. The findings support a stratified imaging strategy (US for low‑risk assessment, MRI for high‑risk plaque characterization) pending prospective validation.
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.