ArticleEuropean radiology2017
The diagnostic value of high-frequency power-based diffusion-weighted imaging in prediction of neuroepithelial tumour grading.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Predictive Role of the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient and MRI Morphologic Features on IDH Status in Patients With Diffuse Glioma: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Grading of Glioma: combined diagnostic value of amide proton transfer weighted, arterial spin labeling and diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging.BMC medical imaging · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo retrospectively evaluate the diagnostic value of high-frequency power (HFP) compared with the minimum apparent diffusion coefficient (MinADC) in the prediction of neuroepithelial tumour grading.
methodsDiffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) data were acquired on 115 patients by a 3.0-T MRI system, which included b0 images and b1000 images over the whole brain in each patient. The HFP values and MinADC values were calculated by an in-house script written on the MATLAB platform.
resultsThere was a significant difference among each group excluding grade I (G1) vs. grade II (G2) (P = 0.309) for HFP and among each group for MinADC. ROC analysis showed a higher discriminative accuracy between low-grade glioma (LGG) and high-grade glioma (HGG) for HFP with area under the curve (AUC) value 1 compared with that for MinADC with AUC 0.83 ± 0.04 and also demonstrated a higher discriminative ability among the G1-grade IV (G4) group for HFP compared with that for MinADC except G1 vs. G2.
conclusionsHFP could provide a simple and effective optimal tool for the prediction of neuroepithelial tumour grading based on diffusion-weighted images in routine clinical practice. KEY POINTS: • HFP shows positive correlation with neuroepithelial tumour grading. • HFP presents a good diagnostic efficacy for LGG and HGG. • HFP is helpful in the selection of brain tumour boundary.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28608161What 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.