ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2015
Apparent diffusion coefficient is highly reproducible on preclinical imaging systems: Evidence from a seven-center multivendor study.
Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Translation of PET radiotracers for cancer imaging: recommendations from the National Cancer Imaging Translational Accelerator (NCITA) consensus meeting.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Automated quality control of small animal MR neuroimaging data.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- Evaluation of deep learning reconstruction on diffusion-weighted imaging quality and apparent diffusion coefficient using an ice-water phantom.Radiological physics and technology · 2024Article
- Repeatability and reproducibility of apparent exchange rate measurements in yeast cell phantoms using filter-exchange imaging.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Repeatability and Reproducibility for Preclinical MRIs Using Standardized Procedures and a Diffusion-Weighted Imaging Phantom.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2023Article
- Repeatability and reproducibility of ADC measurements: a prospective multicenter whole-body-MRI study.European radiology · 2021Article
- Repeatability and reproducibility of longitudinal relaxation rate in 12 small-animal MRI systems.Magnetic resonance imaging · 2019Article
- Recommendations towards standards for quantitative MRI (qMRI) and outstanding needs.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2019Review
- A new method for the high-precision assessment of tumor changes in response to treatment.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2018Article
- A biomimetic tumor tissue phantom for validating diffusion-weighted MRI measurements.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2018Article
- Simultaneous characterization of tumor cellularity and the Warburg effect with PET, MRI and hyperpolarizedTheranostics · 2018Article
- Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in cancer: Reported apparent diffusion coefficients, in-vitro and in-vivo reproducibility.World journal of radiology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate between-site agreement of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements in preclinical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) systems. MATERIALS AND
methodsA miniaturized thermally stable ice-water phantom was devised. ADC (mean and interquartile range) was measured over several days, on 4.7T, 7T, and 9.4T Bruker, Agilent, and Magnex small-animal MRI systems using a common protocol across seven sites. Day-to-day repeatability was expressed as percent variation of mean ADC between acquisitions. Cross-site reproducibility was expressed as 1.96 × standard deviation of percent deviation of ADC values.
resultsADC measurements were equivalent across all seven sites with a cross-site ADC reproducibility of 6.3%. Mean day-to-day repeatability of ADC measurements was 2.3%, and no site was identified as presenting different measurements than others (analysis of variance [ANOVA] P = 0.02, post-hoc test n.s.). Between-slice ADC variability was negligible and similar between sites (P = 0.15). Mean within-region-of-interest ADC variability was 5.5%, with one site presenting a significantly greater variation than the others (P = 0.0013).
conclusionAbsolute ADC values in preclinical studies are comparable between sites and equipment, provided standardized protocols are employed.
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.