ArticleEuropean radiology2017
Impact of post-processing methods on apparent diffusion coefficient values.
Article in European radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- MRI findings for differentiating benign and malignant soft tissue tumors: a narrative review- Part 1: diagnostic performance.Skeletal radiology · 2026Review
- The role of diffusion-weighted MRI in biological image-guided radiation therapy: a roadmap.Physics in medicine and biology · 2026Review
- Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging in the staging of rectal non-mucinous adenocarcinoma.Polish journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Simultaneous multislice echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in patients with focal liver lesions: a comparative study with conventional DWI.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Whole-tumour apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) histogram analysis to identify MYCN-amplification in neuroblastomas: preliminary results.European radiology · 2022Article
- Factors affecting the value of diffusion-weighted imaging for identifying breast cancer patients with pathological complete response on neoadjuvant systemic therapy: a systematic review.Insights into imaging · 2021Review
- Repeatability and reproducibility of ADC measurements: a prospective multicenter whole-body-MRI study.European radiology · 2021Article
- Discrimination of benign from malignant breast lesions in dense breasts with model-based analysis of regions-of-interest using directional diffusion-weighted images.BMC medical imaging · 2020Article
- Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging as a Noninvasive Parameter for Differentiating Benign and Malignant Intraperitoneal Collections.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2020Article
- Imaging for Response Assessment in Radiation Oncology: Current and Emerging Techniques.Hematology/oncology clinics of North America · 2020Review
- Repetitive MRI of organs at risk in head and neck cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2019Review
- [Diffusion-weighted imaging-diagnostic supplement or alternative to contrast agents in early detection of malignancies?]Der Radiologe · 2019Review
- How reliable are ADC measurements? A phantom and clinical study of cervical lymph nodes.European radiology · 2018Article
- Multisite concordance of apparent diffusion coefficient measurements across the NCI Quantitative Imaging Network.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) is increasingly used as a quantitative biomarker in oncological imaging. ADC calculation is based on raw diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) data, and multiple post-processing methods (PPMs) have been proposed for this purpose. We investigated whether PPM has an impact on final ADC values.
methodsSixty-five lesions scanned with a standardized whole-body DWI-protocol at 3 T served as input data (EPI-DWI, b-values: 50, 400 and 800 s/mm
resultsStratified by PPM, mean ADCs ranged from 1.136-1.206 *10
conclusionAltering the PPM had a significant impact on the ADC value. This should be considered if ADC values from different post-processing methods are compared in patient studies. KEY POINTS: • Post-processing methods significantly influenced ADC values. • The mean coefficient of ADC variation due to PPM was 7.2 %. • To achieve reproducible ADC values, standardization of post-processing is recommended.
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.