ArticleNeuroradiology2023
A multi-reader comparison of normal-appearing white matter normalization techniques for perfusion and diffusion MRI in brain tumors.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of multimodal CEST, perfusion and diffusion MRI for predicting clinical outcome of patients with diffuse glioma following surgery at baseline before radiotherapy.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026Article
- Comparison of the normalized cerebral blood volume (CBV) between different models and evaluation of the efficacy of gadolinium leakage in evaluating preoperative adult-type gliomas.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- 5T chemical exchange saturation transfer imaging improves glioma grading and genotyping prediction: a supplement to 3T diffusion and perfusion MRI.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
- Distinguishing IDH-mutant astrocytomas from IDH-wildtype glioblastomas using qualitative and quantitative MRI features: a WHO CNS5 study.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Normalization of the percentage of signal recovery derived from dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MRI in brain tumors.Neuroradiology · 2025Article
- Leveraging Physics-Based Synthetic MR Images and Deep Transfer Learning for Artifact Reduction in Echo-Planar Imaging.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2025Article
- "Synthetic" DSC Perfusion MRI with Adjustable Acquisition Parameters in Brain Tumors Using Dynamic Spin-and-Gradient-Echo Echoplanar Imaging.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2025Article
- A review of deep learning for brain tumor analysis in MRI.NPJ precision oncology · 2025Review
- Comparison of normalized cerebral blood flow between different post-processing methods of dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion-weighted imaging and arterial spin labeling in gliomas with different grading.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Diffusion MRI is superior to quantitative T2-FLAIR mismatch in predicting molecular subtypes of human non-enhancing gliomas.Neuroradiology · 2024Article
- Differentiating IDH-mutant astrocytomas and 1p19q-codeleted oligodendrogliomas using DSC-PWI: high performance through cerebral blood volume and percentage of signal recovery percentiles.European radiology · 2024Article
- Quantification of T2-FLAIR Mismatch in Nonenhancing Diffuse Gliomas Using Digital Subtraction.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2024Article
- Multi-nuclear sodium, diffusion, and perfusion MRI in human gliomas.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2023Article
- Apparent diffusion coefficient for genetic characterization of untreated adult gliomas: A meta-analysis stratified by methods.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
- Peritumoral brain zone oxygen extraction fraction is associated with tumor Ki-67 index in untreated glioblastoma.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThere remains no consensus normal-appearing white matter (NAWM) normalization method to compute normalized relative cerebral blood volume (nrCBV) and apparent diffusion coefficient (nADC) in brain tumors. This reader study explored nrCBV and nADC differences using different NAWM normalization methods.
methodsThirty-five newly diagnosed glioma patients were studied. For each patient, two readers created four NAWM regions of interests: (1) a single plane in the centrum semiovale (CSOp), (2) 3 spheres in the centrum semiovale (CSOs), (3) a single plane in the slice of the tumor center (TUMp), and (4) 3 spheres in the slice of the tumor center (TUMs). Readers repeated NAWM segmentations 1 month later. Differences in nrCBV and nADC of the FLAIR hyperintense tumor, inter-/intra-reader variability, and time to segment NAWM were assessed. As a validation step, the diagnostic performance of each method for IDH-status prediction was evaluated.
resultsBoth readers obtained significantly different nrCBV (P < .001), nADC (P < .001), and time to segment NAWM (P < .001) between the four normalization methods. nrCBV and nADC were significantly different between CSO and TUM methods, but not between planar and spherical methods in the same NAWM region. Broadly, CSO methods were quicker than TUM methods, and spherical methods were quicker than planar methods. For all normalization techniques, inter-reader reproducibility and intra-reader repeatability were excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.9), and the IDH-status predictive performance remained similar.
conclusionThe selected NAWM region significantly impacts nrCBV and nADC values. CSO methods, particularly CSOs, may be preferred because of time reduction, similar reader variability, and similar diagnostic performance compared to TUM methods.
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.