ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2025
Multi-institution longitudinal apparent diffusion coefficient measurements in a diffusion weighted imaging phantom at room temperature.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Quantitative evaluation of apparent diffusion coefficient in a large multi-unit institution.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: This work contributes to technical validation of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) as a biomarker of cancer. The aim was to evaluate ADC accuracy, random error, short-term and long-term repeatability and reproducibility, across multiple institutions using a room temperature phantom. Materials and methods: ADC measurements were made in a travelling room temperature diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) phantom on six scanners at four UK institutions over 18 months at six-month intervals. ADC bias measurements were calculated as the difference between measured and temperature corrected ground-truth ADC values and used to calculate mean ADC bias, isocentre ADC error estimate, short- and long-term intra-scanner repeatability as per the Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA) DWI profiles, and inter-scanner reproducibility by calculating the 95 % limits of agreement for all ADC bias measurements. Results: The use of a room-temperature phantom with a magnetic resonance (MR) readable thermometer enabled ADC measurements without ice-water setup, considerably simplifying logistics with respect to multi-institution ADC quality assurance. Mean ADC bias across all scanners and sessions was <0.01 × 10 Conclusion: Results indicated good ADC accuracy, repeatability and reproducibility; demonstrating the feasibility of transferring diagnostic DWI sequences between scanners from the same manufacturer, for use in multi-institution longitudinal studies, and assessing ADC with minimal quality control and harmonisation steps required.
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.