Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32764721›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Influence of residual fat signal on diffusion kurtosis MRI of suspicious mammography findings.

Anna Mlynarska-Bujny, Sebastian Bickelhaupt, Frederik Bernd Laun, Franziska König, Wolfgang Lederer, Heidi Daniel, Mark Edward Ladd, Heinz-Peter Schlemmer, Stefan Delorme, Tristan Anselm Kuder

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Anna Mlynarska-BujnyDepartment of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Sebastian BickelhauptJunior Group Medical Imaging and Radiology - Cancer Prevention, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Frederik Bernd LaunInstitute of Radiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.
Franziska KönigDepartment of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Wolfgang LedererRadiological Clinic at the ATOS Clinic Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Heidi DanielRadiology Center Mannheim (RZM), Mannheim, Germany.
Mark Edward LaddDepartment of Medical Physics in Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Heinz-Peter SchlemmerDepartment of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Stefan DelormeDepartment of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Tristan Anselm KuderDepartment of Medical Physics in Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. t.kuder@dkfz.de.
Heidelberg University · DEGerman Cancer Research Center · DEUniversitätsklinikum Erlangen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent studies showed the potential of diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) as a tool for improved classification of suspicious breast lesions. However, in diffusion-weighted imaging of the female breast, sufficient fat suppression is one of the main factors determining the success. In this study, the data of 198 patients examined in two study centres was analysed using standard diffusion and kurtosis evaluation methods and three DKI fitting approaches accounting phenomenologically for fat-related signal contamination of the lesions. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed the highest area under the curve (AUC) for the method including fat correction terms (AUC = 0.85, p < 0.015) in comparison to the values obtained with the standard diffusion (AUC = 0.77) and kurtosis approach (AUC = 0.79). Comparing the two study centres, the AUC value improved from 0.77 to 0.86 (p = 0.036) using a fat correction term for the first centre, while no significant difference with no adverse effects was observed for the second centre (AUC 0.89 vs. 0.90, p = 0.95). Contamination of the signal in breast lesions with unsuppressed fat causing a reduction of diagnostic performance of diffusion kurtosis imaging may potentially be counteracted by proposed adapted evaluation methods.

Indexed as

Diffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMammographyAdipose TissueAdultFemaleHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSignal-To-Noise Ratio

Identifiers

PMID32764721
PMCPMC7413543
OpenAlexW3047143229

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.