ArticleHeliyon2024
Comparison of single-shot, FOCUS single-shot, MUSE, and FOCUS MUSE diffusion weighted imaging for pulmonary lesions: A pilot 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improved image quality and T-staging accuracy using FOCUS-MUSE DWI in gastric cancer: a prospective comparison with SS-EPI.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- FOCUS-DWI improves prostate cancer detection through deep learning reconstruction with IQMR technology.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Prospective comparison of synthetic high b-value field of view optimized and constrained undistorted multiplexed sensitivity encoding (FOCUS-MUSE) and FOCUS diffusion-weighted imaging in evaluating cervical cancer.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Accuracy, intra-, and inter-radiologist variability of PI-RADS v2.1 scoring for clinically significant prostate cancer detection.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rationale and objectives: To compare the performance of SS, FOCUS SS, MUSE, and FOCUS MUSE DWI for pulmonary lesions to obtain a better technique for pulmonary DWI imaging. Materials and methods: 44 patients with pulmonary lesions were recruited to perform pulmonary DWI using SS, FOCUS SS, MUSE, and FOCUS MUSE sequences. Then, two radiologists with 12 and 10 years of chest MRI experiences assessed the overall image quality while another two radiologists both with 3 years of experiences evaluated the SNR, DR, and ADC of pulmonary lesions. Using interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and kappa statistics to assess consistency of readers, Friedman test and Dunn-Bonferroni post hoc were used to calculate the difference between sequences. Mann-Whitney test and ROC curve were used to distinguish malignant from benign lesions. Results: All the assessed variables of the four sequences presented good to excellent intra-/inter-observer consistency. Compared with SS, FOCUS SS and MUSE, FOCUS MUSE demonstrated better image quality, including significantly higher 5-point Likert scale score (P < 0.001) and smaller DR (P < 0.001). SNR was comparable among SS, FOCUS SS, and FOCUS MUSE (P > 0.05) while MUSE presented with significantly higher SNR over them (P < 0.01). ADC of malignant was significantly smaller than that of benign for all the four sequences (P < 0.05). ROC analysis showed relatively better diagnostic performance of FOCUS MUSE (AUC = 0.820) over SS (AUC = 0.748), FOCUS SS (AUC = 0.778), and MUSE (AUC = 0.729) in distinguishing malignant from benign lesions. Conclusion: FOCUS MUSE possessed sufficient SNR and was better over SS, FOUCS SS, and MUSE for characterizing pulmonary lesions.
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.