Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38853182›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2024

Otso Arponen, Mary A McLean, Muzna Nanaa, Roido Manavaki, Gabrielle C Baxter, Andrew B Gill, Frank Riemer, Aneurin J Kennerley, Ramona Woitek, Joshua D Kaggie and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology experimental, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Otso ArponenDepartment of Radiology, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Box 218, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK. oa324@cam.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8541-0126
Mary A McLeanDepartment of Radiology, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Box 218, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Muzna NanaaDepartment of Radiology, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Box 218, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Roido ManavakiDepartment of Radiology, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Box 218, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Gabrielle C BaxterDepartment of Radiology, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Box 218, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Andrew B GillDepartment of Radiology, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Box 218, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Frank RiemerDepartment of Radiology, Mohn Medical Imaging and Visualization Centre (MMIV), Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Aneurin J KennerleyYork Biomedical Research Institute, University of York, York, UK.
Ramona WoitekDepartment of Radiology, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Box 218, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Joshua D KaggieDepartment of Radiology, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Box 218, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
William J BrackenburyYork Biomedical Research Institute, University of York, York, UK.
Fiona J GilbertDepartment of Radiology, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Box 218, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK A25922Medical Research Council MR/X018067/1NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre BRC-1215-20014
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo study the reproducibility of

methodsUsing a dual-tuned bilateral

resultsNine healthy volunteers were included. The inter-reader reproducibility of TSC and FASC using SROIs and LROIs was excellent (intraclass coefficient range 0.945-0.979, p < 0.001), except for the minimum TSC LROI measurements (p = 0.369). The mean/minimum LROI TSC and mean LROI FASC values were lower than the respective SROI values (p < 0.001); the maximum LROI TSC values were higher than the SROI TSC values (p = 0.009). TSC correlated inversely with age but not with FGT ADCs. The mean and maximum FGT TSC and FASC values were higher in dense breasts in comparison to non-dense breasts (p < 0.020).

conclusionsThe chosen sampling method and the selected descriptive value affect the measured TSC and FASC values, although the inter-reader reproducibility of the measurements is in general excellent. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: KEY POINTS: •

Indexed as

BreastMagnetic Resonance ImagingSodiumAdultFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansMiddle AgedObserver VariationReproducibility of ResultsSodium IsotopesYoung AdultSodiumSodium IsotopesBreast neoplasms, Healthy volunteers, Magnetic resonance imaging, Reproducibility of results, Sodium

Identifiers

PMID38853182
PMCPMC11162986

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.