ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Determining malignant potential of pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm with CT: interobserver variability and diagnostic performance.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate interobserver agreement and diagnostic performance of computed tomography (CT) in assessing the malignant potential of pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) based on the 2024 International evidence-based Kyoto guidelines, focusing on the impact of reviewer experience.
methodsIn this multicenter retrospective study, CT images of 120 patients with pathologically confirmed IPMNs (53 malignant, 44.2%) were independently reviewed by eight observers (four experienced abdominal radiologists and four radiology residents). Malignant potential was graded using a five-point scale based on high-risk stigmata (HRS) and worrisome features (WF) defined by the 2024 Kyoto guidelines. Diagnostic performance (AUC) and interobserver agreement were compared between experience-based and guideline-based interpretations according to reviewer experience.
resultsAmong 120 patients (mean age, 65.9 ± 10.5 years; range, 41-87), 53 (44.2%) had malignant IPMNs. Interobserver agreement was substantial (α = 0.66) using the Kyoto guidelines and was higher among more experienced reviewers (α = 0.73 vs. 0.66; p < 0.001). Diagnostic performance was good (AUC, 0.75-0.89), with no statistically significant difference between more and less experienced reviewer groups (p = 0.26). For less experienced reviewers, guideline-based interpretation improved diagnostic performance (AUC 0.71-0.80 to 0.75-0.85; p < 0.001) and interobserver agreement (α = 0.43 to 0.66; p < 0.001) compared with experience-based assessment. In contrast, for more experienced reviewers, guideline-based interpretation did not result in a statistically significant change in diagnostic performance (AUC 0.88-0.92 to 0.82-0.89; p = 0.08), while interobserver agreement showed a modest decrease (α = 0.81 to 0.73; p < 0.001).
conclusionThe 2024 Kyoto guidelines demonstrated an experience-dependent effect, improving diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement among less experienced readers, with limited additional benefit for experienced radiologists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42752962What 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.