Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 208

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Update of Breast MR Imaging Architectural Interpretation Model

Nunes, Linda White, Schnall, Mitchell D., Orel, Susan G.·2001·Radiology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To (a) validate a breast magnetic resonance (MR) interpretation model, (b) expand the tree-shaped prediction model to increase specificity without decreasing sensitivity, and (c) reevaluate the model's diagnostic performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred sixty-two new patients with palpable or mammographic abnormalities underwent MR imaging, and pathologic evaluation was performed. They were entered prospectively into the model, which yielded 454 patients in the construction (training) and validation (test) phases. Predictive values for previously published terminal nodes or branch points of the model were compared between the training and test data sets. Ductal enhancement morphology, regional enhancement micronodularity, regional enhancement degree, and focal mass T2 signal intensity were evaluated for model expansion. Diagnostic performance characteristics of the model were recalculated. RESULTS: For previously published nodes, absence of a lesion visible at MR imaging, smooth masses, lobulated masses with nonenhancing internal septations, and lobulated masses with minimal or no enhancement had negative predictive values (NPVs) for malignancy similar in both data sets (96% vs 99%, 100% vs 93%, 100% vs 98%, and 100% vs 100%). Irregular masses with internal septations (100% vs 0%) and spiculated masses with no or minimal enhancement (100% vs 50%) did not. Nonseptated enhancing lobulated masses with low T2 signal intensity were added as a benign terminal node (NPV, 100%). Mild regional enhancement (NPV, 92%) was added but not considered a terminal node. Sensitivity, specificity, NPV, positive predictive value, and accuracy of the expanded model were 96%, 80%, 96%, 78%, and 87%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Additional investigation yielded a slightly modified model, but the diagnostic performance characteristics remain high, similar to those originally published.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1148/radiology.219.2.r01ma44484

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 208

Metadata

Authors
Nunes, L. W., Schnall, M. D., & Orel, S. G.
Venue
Radiology
Published
2001-05
Volume
219
Issue
2
Pages
484-494
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2060864913
Cited by
208
References
1
FWCI
7.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Update of Breast MR Imaging Architectural Interpretation Model. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiology.219.2.r01ma44484
The paper
Nunes, L. W., Schnall, M. D., & Orel, S. G. (2001). Update of Breast MR Imaging Architectural Interpretation Model. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.219.2.r01ma44484

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.