Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32161202›Full record

ArticleMagnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine2021

Comparison of the Diagnostic Value of Mono-exponential, Bi-exponential, and Stretched Exponential Signal Models in Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging for Differentiating Benign and Malignant Hepatic Lesions.

Yoshifumi Noda, Satoshi Goshima, Keita Fujimoto, Yuta Akamine, Kimihiro Kajita, Nobuyuki Kawai, Masayuki Matsuo

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
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

7 authors.

Yoshifumi NodaDepartment of Radiology, Gifu University.
Satoshi GoshimaDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Hamamatsu University.
Keita FujimotoDepartment of Radiology, Gifu University.
Yuta AkaminePhilips Japan.
Kimihiro KajitaDepartment of Radiology, Gifu University.
Nobuyuki KawaiDepartment of Radiology, Gifu University.
Masayuki MatsuoDepartment of Radiology, Gifu University.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the diagnostic value of mono-exponential, bi-exponential, and stretched exponential diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for differentiating benign and malignant hepatic lesions.

methodsThis prospective study was approved by our Institutional Review Board and the patients provided written informed consent. Magnetic resonance imaging was acquired for 56 patients with suspected liver disease. This identified 90 focal liver lesions with a maximum diameter >10 mm, of which 47 were benign and 43 were malignant. Using home-built software, two radiologists measured the DWI parameters of hepatic lesions for three models: the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) from a mono-exponential model; the true diffusion coefficient (D), pseudo-diffusion coefficient (D

resultsADC, D, D

conclusionDDC values obtained from the stretched exponential model could be also used as a quantitative imaging biomarker for differentiating benign and malignant hepatic lesions, however, the diagnostic performance was comparable with ADC values.

Indexed as

Diffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedLiverLiver DiseasesProspective StudiesROC Curveabdomenliver neoplasmsmagnetic resonance imaging

Identifiers

PMID32161202
PMCPMC7952197

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.