Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30116979›Full record

ArticleMagma (New York, N.Y.)2018

Comparison of methods for estimation of the intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) diffusion coefficient (D) and perfusion fraction (f).

Oscar Jalnefjord, Mats Andersson, Mikael Montelius, Göran Starck, Anna-Karin Elf, Viktor Johanson, Johanna Svensson, Maria Ljungberg

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Magma (New York, N.Y.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Quantitative perfusion and water transport time model from multiJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2023
    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

8 authors.

Oscar JalnefjordDepartment of Radiation Physics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. oscar.jalnefjord@gu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2741-5890
Mats AnderssonDepartment of Radiology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Mikael MonteliusDepartment of Radiation Physics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Göran StarckDepartment of Radiation Physics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Anna-Karin ElfDepartment of Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Viktor JohansonDepartment of Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Johanna SvenssonDepartment of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Maria LjungbergDepartment of Radiation Physics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Funding

Cancerfonden 2016/692
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIntravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) shows great potential in many applications, e.g., tumor tissue characterization. To reduce image-quality demands, various IVIM analysis approaches restricted to the diffusion coefficient (D) and the perfusion fraction (f) are increasingly being employed. In this work, the impact of estimation approach for D and f is studied. MATERIALS AND

methodsFour approaches for estimating D and f were studied: segmented IVIM fitting, least-squares fitting of a simplified IVIM model (sIVIM), and Bayesian fitting of the sIVIM model using marginal posterior modes or posterior means. The estimation approaches were evaluated in terms of bias and variability as well as ability for differentiation between tumor and healthy liver tissue using simulated and in vivo data.

resultsAll estimation approaches had similar variability and ability for differentiation and negligible bias, except for the Bayesian posterior mean of f, which was substantially biased. Combined use of D and f improved tumor-to-liver tissue differentiation compared with using D or f separately. DISCUSSION: The similar performance between estimation approaches renders the segmented one preferable due to lower numerical complexity and shorter computational time. Superior tissue differentiation when combining D and f suggests complementary biologically relevant information.

Indexed as

Diffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingAlgorithmsArtifactsBayes TheoremComputer SimulationHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedImage Processing, Computer-AssistedLeast-Squares AnalysisLiverLiver NeoplasmsMonte Carlo MethodMotionNeoplasmsPerfusionReproducibility of ResultsDiffusion magnetic resonance imagingMonte Carlo methodPerfusionSignal-to-noise ratio

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.