Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29476218›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2018

How reliable are ADC measurements? A phantom and clinical study of cervical lymph nodes.

Bastien Moreau, Antoine Iannessi, Christopher Hoog, Hubert Beaumont

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Study
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Evaluating Reproducibility of the ADC and Distortion in Diffusion-weighted Imaging (DWI) with Reverse Encoding Distortion Correction (RDC).Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Preoperative Localization of Parathyroid Adenomas with Diffusion MR Imaging: Readout-segmented versus Single-shot Echo-planar Imaging.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bastien MoreauDepartment of Radiology, Centre Antoine Lacassagne, 06100, Nice, France.
Antoine IannessiDepartment of Radiology, Centre Antoine Lacassagne, 06100, Nice, France.
Christopher HoogDepartment of Radiology, Centre Antoine Lacassagne, 06100, Nice, France.
Hubert BeaumontResearch and Development Department, Median Technologies, Les deux arcs - 1800 route des crêtes - Bat. B, 06560, Valbonne, France. Hubert.beaumont@mediantechnologies.com.
Centre Antoine Lacassagne · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the reliability of ADC measurements in vitro and in cervical lymph nodes of healthy volunteers.

methodsWe used a GE 1.5 T MRI scanner and a first ice-water phantom according to recommendations released by the Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance (QIBA) for assessing ADC against reference values. We analysed the target size effect by using a second phantom made of six inserted spheres with diameters ranging from 10 to 37 mm. Thirteen healthy volunteers were also scanned to assess the inter- and intra-observer reproducibility of volumetric ADC measurements of cervical lymph nodes.

resultsOn the ice-water phantom, the error in ADC measurements was less than 4.3 %. The spatial bias due to the non-linearity of gradient fields was found to be 24 % at 8 cm from the isocentre. ADC measure reliability decreased when addressing small targets due to partial volume effects (up to 12.8 %). The mean ADC value of cervical lymph nodes was 0.87.10

conclusionADC is a potentially important imaging biomarker in oncology; however, variability issues preclude its broader adoption. Reliable use of ADC requires technical advances and systematic quality control. KEY POINTS: • ADC is a promising quantitative imaging biomarker. • ADC has a fair inter-reader variability and good intra-reader variability. • Partial volume effect, post-processing software and non-linearity of scanners are limiting factors. • No threshold values for detecting cervical lymph node malignancy can be drawn.

Indexed as

AdultBiasCervical VertebraeDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansLymphatic VesselsLymph NodesMaleMiddle AgedNeckPhantoms, ImagingProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsYoung AdultBiomarkersDiffusionLymphMagnetic resonance imagingQuantitative evaluation

Identifiers

PMID29476218
PMCPMC6028847
OpenAlexW2792921749

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.