ArticlePloS one2020
Gamma distribution model of diffusion MRI for the differentiation of primary central nerve system lymphomas and glioblastomas.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stochastic differential equation modeling approach for grading astrocytomas on brain MRI images.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Gamma distribution model of diffusion MRI for evaluating the isocitrate dehydrogenase mutation status of glioblastomas.The British journal of radiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The preoperative imaging-based differentiation of primary central nervous system lymphomas (PCNSLs) and glioblastomas (GBs) is of high importance since the therapeutic strategies differ substantially between these tumors. In this study, we investigate whether the gamma distribution (GD) model is useful in this differentiation of PNCSLs and GBs. Twenty-seven patients with PCNSLs and 57 patients with GBs were imaged with diffusion-weighted imaging using 13 b-values ranging from 0 to 1000 sec/mm2. The shape parameter (κ) and scale parameter (θ) were obtained with the GD model. Fractions of three different areas under the probability density function curve (f1, f2, f3) were defined as follows: f1, diffusion coefficient (D) <1.0×10-3 mm2/sec; f2, D >1.0×10-3 and <3.0×10-3 mm2/sec; f3, D >3.0 × 10-3 mm2/sec. The GD model-derived parameters were compared between PCNSLs and GBs. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were performed to assess diagnostic performance. The correlations with intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM)-derived parameters were evaluated. The PCNSL group's κ (2.26 ± 1.00) was significantly smaller than the GB group's (3.62 ± 2.01, p = 0.0004). The PCNSL group's f1 (0.542 ± 0.107) was significantly larger than the GB group's (0.348 ± 0.132, p<0.0001). The PCNSL group's f2 (0.372 ± 0.098) was significantly smaller than the GB group's (0.508 ± 0.127, p<0.0001). The PCNSL group's f3 (0.086 ± 0.043) was significantly smaller than the GB group's (0.144 ± 0.062, p<0.0001). The combination of κ, f1, and f3 showed excellent diagnostic performance (area under the curve, 0.909). The f1 had an almost perfect inverse correlation with D. The f2 and f3 had very strong positive correlations with D and f, respectively. The GD model is useful for the differentiation of GBs and PCNSLs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.