ReviewInsights into imaging2026
Colour maps for representation of quantitative metrics in radiology: meaningful or misleading?
Review 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The increased utility of quantitative metrics in medical imaging has prompted the use of colour representation of the data. Colour schemes for image display can highlight pathology and distinguish normal anatomy, thus potentially aiding image interpretation. Adding colour schemes to images may serve the sole purpose of visualising an abnormality or may seek to represent and meaningfully convey a quantitative metric. An early use of colour representation is exemplified by colour Doppler in ultrasound (US), where a two-sided linear scale is commonly applied. More recently, many schemes have arisen, ranging from a single colour to depict a segmented region to a range of colours that embrace the entire colour spectrum. These may be applied as continuous or discrete palettes, depending on the software vendor or even on individual user settings. The lack of standardisation of colour schemes across the medical community, especially in medical imaging, risks misinterpretation of quantitative data and potential unintended negative clinical consequences. The purpose of this article is to review the colour schemes used for quantitative imaging across US, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and positron emission tomography (PET), the way in which they are applied, the clinical applications where their use is desirable for enhanced interpretation, and the pitfalls where standardisation is lacking in a variety of clinical applications. Finally, we discuss some solutions that could be employed to enable standardisation and augment the use of colour in image interpretation. KEY POINTS: Question Colour schemes in medical imaging can highlight pathology, but standardisation is lacking for most imaging modalities, thus risking misinterpretation of quantitative data. Findings For T1, T2, and T2* maps and their inverses, colour map recommendations have recently been proposed, but are mostly lacking for other quantitative data. Critical relevance statement Standardised colour maps can enhance data analyses across scanners and institutions, which is important for multicentre studies and handling big data. Furthermore, standardised and harmonised colour maps could improve lesion conspicuity, cross-platform comparability, and longitudinal reliability.
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.