Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29617445›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Comparison of six fit algorithms for the intra-voxel incoherent motion model of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging data of pancreatic cancer patients.

Oliver J Gurney-Champion, Remy Klaassen, Martijn Froeling, Sebastiano Barbieri, Jaap Stoker, Marc R W Engelbrecht, Johanna W Wilmink, Marc G Besselink, Arjan Bel, Hanneke W M van Laarhoven and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Impact of AlternateTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2022
    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

11 authors.

Oliver J Gurney-ChampionJoint Department of Physics, The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1750-6617
Remy KlaassenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Martijn FroelingDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Sebastiano BarbieriCentre for Big Data Research in Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Jaap StokerDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Marc R W EngelbrechtDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Johanna W WilminkDepartment of Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Marc G BesselinkDepartment of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Arjan BelDepartment Radiation Oncology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Hanneke W M van LaarhovenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Aart J NederveenDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) model for diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) MRI data bears much promise as a tool for visualizing tumours and monitoring treatment response. To improve the currently poor precision of IVIM, several fit algorithms have been suggested. In this work, we compared the performance of two Bayesian IVIM fit algorithms and four other IVIM fit algorithms for pancreatic cancer imaging. DWI data were acquired in 14 pancreatic cancer patients during two MRI examinations. Three different measures of performance of the fitting algorithms were assessed: (i) uniqueness of fit parameters (Spearman's rho); (ii) precision (within-subject coefficient of variation, wCV); and (iii) contrast between tumour and normal-appearing pancreatic tissue. For the diffusivity D and perfusion fraction f, a Bayesian fit (IVIM-Bayesian-lin) offered the best trade-off between tumour contrast and precision. With the exception for IVIM-Bayesian-lin, all algorithms resulted in a very poor precision of the pseudo-diffusion coefficient D* with a wCV of more than 50%. The pseudo-diffusion coefficient D* of the Bayesian approaches were, however, significantly correlated with D and f. Therefore, the added value of fitting D* was considered limited in pancreatic cancer patients. The easier implemented least squares fit with fixed D* (IVIM-fixed) performed similar to IVIM-Bayesian-lin for f and D. In conclusion, the best performing IVIM fit algorithm was IVM-Bayesian-lin, but an easier to implement least squares fit with fixed D* performs similarly in pancreatic cancer patients.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingAgedAlgorithmsBayes TheoremFemaleHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMaleMiddle AgedPancreatic NeoplasmsProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID29617445
PMCPMC5884505

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.