ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Soft Tissue Reporting and Data System (Soft Tissue-RADS): preliminary validation among fellowship-trained musculoskeletal radiologists.
Article in European radiology, 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo validate the MRI-based soft tissue tumor scoring system by comparing the accuracy of the Soft Tissue-RADS to qualitative assessment. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, adult MRIs of soft-tissue tumors and tumor-like lesions with known reference standards, obtained from June 2015 to May 2024, were included. Patients with incomplete imaging, no final diagnosis, and visceral tumors were excluded. The scoring categories were 1-6. The cases were presented to ten expert musculoskeletal (MSK) radiologists from ten institutions under curated image-review conditions. Inter-reader agreement and MRI accuracy were calculated and compared to the accuracy of final qualitative diagnoses and respective confidence scales.
resultsAmong 150 MRI scans from 150 patients (68 males; 82 females) from one center, 6 cases were category 1; 60, category 2; 32, category 3; 14, category 4; 22, category 5; and 16, category 6. Good-to-excellent inter-reader agreement was observed overall (Kappa: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.74, 0.83). The mean accuracy of Soft-Tissue RADS between benign (categories 1-3) versus suspicious (categories 4 and 5) tumors was 82% (95% CI: 80%, 84%) versus 61% (95% CI: 58%, 63%) for qualitative diagnoses (p < 0.001). The mean true positive rate for RADS 6 was 97%. AUC for ten readers was 0.85 to 0.91. Average confidence level using Soft-Tissue RADS was greater than qualitative diagnoses (4.35 ± 0.81 vs. 4.14 ± 0.99; p < 0.001).
conclusionSoft Tissue-RADS is a reliable and accurate system for standardized terminology and recommended management of MRIs of soft-tissue tumors and tumor-like lesions among experts. Further validation in routine clinical workflows is necessary. KEY POINTS: Question Given the limited accuracy of radiologists' rendered qualitative diagnoses, what is the diagnostic performance of Soft Tissue-RADS versus qualitative diagnoses? Findings Soft Tissue-RADS scoring is reliable (Kappa: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.74, 0.83) and more accurate (82% vs. 61%, p < 0.001) than qualitative diagnosis with better confidence levels (p < 0.001). Clinical relevance Soft Tissue-RADS system can potentially lead to consistent management recommendations and longitudinal data collection in the domain of sarcoma diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42834164What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.