The Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) V2 is a simplified update of PI-QUAL V1 for assessing image quality in multiparametric prostate MRI (mpMRI), aimed at improving clinical use and reproducibility. This study evaluated inter-reader agreement of PI-QUAL V2 among basic prostate readers using multicenter mpMRI data and compared it to PI-QUAL V1. Five readers assessed T2-weighted, DWI (including ADC maps), and DCE images from 274 men (median age: 71 years, IQR: 60–78) across five centers. Inter-reader agreement was measured using weighted Gwet’s AC1 coefficients and compared using bootstrapped confidence intervals. For PI-QUAL V1, coefficients ranged from 0.659 to 0.855, indicating substantial-to-almost perfect agreement. For PI-QUAL V2, coefficients ranged from 0.821 to 0.897, showing almost perfect agreement. All 10 pairwise comparisons achieved almost perfect agreement for PI-QUAL V2, compared to only 3 of 10 for V1. Additionally, three comparisons showed non-overlapping confidence intervals, indicating statistically significant improvements with V2. PI-QUAL V2 demonstrated consistently higher inter-reader agreement than V1, with basic prostate readers achieving almost perfect agreement across multicenter mpMRI data. These findings highlight the improved reliability and clinical applicability of PI-QUAL V2.

Comparison of the diagnostic performance of the artificial intelligence-based TIRADS algorithm with established classification systems for thyroid nodules - Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology

Pix2Pix generative-adversarial network in improving the quality of T2-weighted prostate magnetic resonance imaging: a multi-reader study - Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology

Objective: To compare radiation doses associated with transradial access (TRA) and transfemoral access (TFA) in transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and transarterial radioembolization (TARE) procedures for hepatic cancers. Methods: This retrospective, single-center study analyzed 119 patients who underwent TACE or TARE between October 2016 and October 2024. Radiation dose parameters were compared between TRA and TFA groups, including fluoroscopy time, fluoroscopy and fluoroscopy-digital radiography combined dose-area product (DAP), and total air kerma (AK). Statistical analyses were performed using the Mann-Whitney U test and Chi-squared test. Results: TRA was associated with significantly higher radiation exposure compared to TFA, including increased fluoroscopy time (median: 15.2 vs. 8.9 minutes, P<0.001), fluoroscopy DAP (median: 84.4 vs. 45.2 Gy∙cm², P<0.001), fluoroscopy-digital radiography combined DAP (median: 246 vs. 156.5 Gy∙cm², P=0.003), and AK (median: 959 vs. 612.9 mGy, P=0.001). No significant differences were observed in patient demographics, tumor localization, or treatment approach between the groups. Conclusions: TRA is associated with higher radiation exposure compared to TFA in TACE and TARE procedures. While TRA offers procedural benefits, further research is needed to optimize techniques and reduce radiation risks, particularly in interventional radiology.

This retrospective bi-national multicenter diagnostic accuracy study evaluated the locked default-threshold performance of a commercial chest radiograph AI system for selected thoracic findings using a CT-anchored, radiographic-detectability reference framework. Consecutive eligible adult patients who underwent frontal chest radiography and chest CT at four tertiary-care centers in Turkey and Bulgaria between June and December 2024 were included. Reference labels were assigned using temporally paired CT, with adjudication of whether CT-confirmed abnormalities had a corresponding radiographic manifestation on the paired chest radiograph. For potentially dynamic findings, the allowable CT–CXR interval was restricted to ≤ 2 days. The AI system was evaluated at the manufacturer’s default threshold of 0.50. Diagnostic performance was summarized using prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and false-positive burden with 95% confidence intervals. The study included 940 patients with paired CXR-CT examinations. Reference-positive prevalence ranged from 2.2% for pneumothorax to 21.0% for pleural effusion. Sensitivity was highest for fracture (91%) and pneumothorax (90%) and lowest for atelectasis (64%); specificity ranged from 82% for consolidation/opacity to 98% for fracture and pneumothorax. PPV ranged from 43% to 63%, indicating a non-trivial false-positive burden at the evaluated operating point. Because continuous probability scores, human-reader comparison, and workflow outcomes were unavailable, these findings should be interpreted as default-threshold technical validation and support further evaluation of the system as radiologist-supervised decision support with local performance monitoring, rather than standalone diagnosis.