ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Inter-software agreement in abdominal computed diffusion-weighted imaging: apparent diffusion coefficient and image quality assessment.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the agreement in apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values and the image quality of abdominal computed diffusion-weighted imaging (cDWI) generated by two software programs.
methodsThis retrospective study included 154 patients (64 males, 90 females; mean age: 70.1 ± 10.7 years) who underwent abdominal diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) between November 2023 and October 2024. DWI was acquired with a b = 0 and 1000 s/mm
resultsADC bias and limits of agreement ranged from - 0.2 to 0.7% and 0.3-2.1%, respectively. ICCs for ADC values ranged within 0.991 and 1.000 (p < 0.05) for all tissues. Significant SNR differences were observed in b1500 (liver, spleen, kidney) and b2000 (liver, bile). Significant CNR differences were noted in b1500 (liver, pancreas, kidney) and b2000 (excluding spleen).
conclusionThere is strong agreement and high reliability in ADC values between the two software programs. Although significant differences in SNR and CNR were observed, their clinical impact appears minimal. These findings indicate that the ADC values and image quality of cDWI are consistent between the two software programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40938381What 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.