ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2022
Physically implausible signals as a quantitative quality assessment metric in prostate diffusion-weighted MR imaging.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prospective Validation of an Automated Hybrid Multidimensional MRI Tool for Prostate Cancer Detection Using Targeted Biopsy: Comparison with PI-RADS-based Assessment.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2025Trial
- Empirical noise mapping guides optimal region-of-interest selection for accurate noise estimation in prostate DWI.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Introduction to matrix-based method for analyzing hybrid multidimensional prostate MRI data.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- The QIBA Profile for Diffusion-Weighted MRI: Apparent Diffusion Coefficient as a Quantitative Imaging Biomarker.Radiology · 2024Review
- Partial Fourier in the presence of respiratory motion in prostate diffusion-weighted echo planar imaging.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo provide a quantitative assessment of diffusion-weighted MR images of the prostate through identification of PIDS which clearly represents artifacts in the data. We calculated the percentage and distribution of PIDS in prostate DWI and compare the amount of PIDS between mpMRI images obtained with and without an endorectal coil.
methodsThis IRB approved retrospective study (from 03/03/2014 to 03/10/2020), included 40 patients scanned with endorectal coil (ERC) and 40 without ER coil (NERC). PIDS contains any voxel where: (1) the diffusion signal increases despite an increase in b-value; and/or (2) apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) is more than 3.0 μm
results80 patients (58 ± 8 years old, 80 men) were evaluated. The percentage of voxels exhibiting PIDS was 17.1 ± 8.1% for the ERC cohort and 22.2 ± 15.5% for the NERC cohort. PIDS for NERC versus ERC were not significantly different (p = 0.14). The apex and base showed similar percentages of PIDS in ERC (p = 0.30) and NERC (p = 0.86). The mid (13.8 ± 8.6%) in ERC showed lower values (p = 0.02) of PIDS compared to apex (19.9 ± 11.1%) and base (17.5 ± 8.3%).
conclusionPIDS maps provide a spatially resolved quantitative quality assessment for prostate DWI. Average PIDS over the entire prostate were similar for the ERC and NERC cohorts, and did not differ significantly across prostate zones. However, for many of the patients, PIDS was focally much higher in specific prostate zones. PIDS assessment can guide Radiologist's evaluation of images and the development of improved DWI sequences.
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.