ArticleHeliyon2024
Comparison of MUSE-DWI and conventional DWI in the application of invasive breast cancer and malignancy grade prediction: A comparative study.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative analysis of the diagnostic value of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging kinetic heterogeneity and apparent diffusion coefficient for grading invasive breast cancer.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2026Article
- Article
- FOCUS-MUSE DWI outperforms MUSE and FOCUS DWIs in orbital imaging quality and staging thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare MUSE-DWI with conventional DWI in assessing lesions of invasive breast cancer and evaluating the ADC values for preoperative histological grading. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 63 lesions confirmed as invasive breast cancer by surgical or biopsy pathology. Preoperatively, all patients underwent MUSE-DWI, conventional DWI, and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) scans. Two radiologists with over 5 years of experience (intermediate and senior levels, respectively) subjectively evaluated the images for clarity, image artifacts, and distortion. Objective evaluation included signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of lesions and fibrous tissue, as well as the ADC values of both imaging techniques. Due to the limited number of cases classified as grade I and the insignificant difference in disease-specific survival and recurrence scores between grades I and II tumors, grades I and II were grouped as low-grade, while grade III was classified as high-grade. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to evaluate the efficacy of ADC values in preoperatively predicting the grading of invasive breast cancer. Results: The SNR and subjective quality scores of MUSE-DWI images were significantly higher than those of conventional DWI (p < 0.05). For the same case, the ADC values of MUSE-DWI were lower than those of conventional DWI. The AUC values for predicting the grading of invasive breast cancer were 0.849 for MUSE-DWI and 0.801 for conventional DWI. Conclusion: Compared to conventional DWI, MUSE-DWI significantly reduces artifacts and distortions, greatly improving image quality. Moreover, MUSE-DWI demonstrates higher diagnostic efficacy for preoperative histological grading of invasive breast cancer.
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.