ArticleScientific reports2017
A data-driven statistical model that estimates measurement uncertainty improves interpretation of ADC reproducibility: a multi-site study of liver metastases.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Non-Gaussian models of diffusion weighted imaging for detection and characterization of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2019Pooled it
- Radiomics signature based on robust features derived from diffusion data for differentiation between benign and malignant solitary pulmonary lesions.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024Trial
- Research on establishment decision of medical equipment measurement standard based on GDM-AHP.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The role of clinical imaging in oncology drug development: progress and new challenges.The British journal of radiology · 2023Review
- Article
- Article
- Quantitative imaging of uterine cancers with diffusion-weighted MRI and 18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2022Review
- Association between IVIM parameters and treatment response in locally advanced squamous cell cervical cancer treated by chemoradiotherapy.European radiology · 2021Article
- Radiomics of diffusion-weighted MRI compared to conventional measurement of apparent diffusion-coefficient for differentiation between benign and malignant soft tissue tumors.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Repeatability and reproducibility of ADC measurements: a prospective multicenter whole-body-MRI study.European radiology · 2021Article
- Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging for focal liver lesions: bridging the gap between research and clinical practice.The British journal of radiology · 2021Review
- Association between MRI histogram features and treatment response in locally advanced cervical cancer treated by chemoradiotherapy.European radiology · 2021Article
- Variability in quantitative diffusion-weighted MR imaging (DWI) across different scanners and imaging sites: is there a potential consensus that can help reducing the limits of expected bias?European radiology · 2019Article
- Stability of radiomics features in apparent diffusion coefficient maps from a multi-centre test-retest trial.Scientific reports · 2019Observational
- Considering tumour volume for motion corrected DWI of colorectal liver metastases increases sensitivity of ADC to detect treatment-induced changes.Scientific reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) is a potential quantitative imaging biomarker for tumour cell density and is widely used to detect early treatment changes in cancer therapy. We propose a strategy to improve confidence in the interpretation of measured changes in ADC using a data-driven model that describes sources of measurement error. Observed ADC is then standardised against this estimation of uncertainty for any given measurement. 20 patients were recruited prospectively and equitably across 4 sites, and scanned twice (test-retest) within 7 days. Repeatability measurements of defined regions (ROIs) of tumour and normal tissue were quantified as percentage change in mean ADC (test vs. re-test) and then standardised against an estimation of uncertainty. Multi-site reproducibility, (quantified as width of the 95% confidence bound between the lower confidence interval and higher confidence interval for all repeatability measurements), was compared before and after standardisation to the model. The 95% confidence interval width used to determine a statistically significant change reduced from 21.1 to 2.7% after standardisation. Small tumour volumes and respiratory motion were found to be important contributors to poor reproducibility. A look up chart has been provided for investigators who would like to estimate uncertainty from statistical error on individual ADC measurements.
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.