ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Diffuse glioma perfusion quantification with ASL and DSC: a head-to-head comparison with
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Arterial spin labeling (ASL) is a non-invasive alternative to dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) for measuring cerebral blood flow (CBF), even though both methods measure slightly different contrast. This study compares ASL and DSC MRI with the gold-standard measurement Methods: Eight patients (age 40.5 ± 17.0 years, 3 women) with grade 2-4 gliomas were scanned at 3T MRI with ASL and DSC, and at PET using a Results: ASL showed superior (p<0.001) voxel-wise agreement with PET (MRE 26.8%) in the normal-appearing tissue compared with DSC (MRE 33.8%). While the tumor maximum CBF normalized to contralateral gray matter comparison with PET did not differ between (p=0.5) ASL (MRE 23.2%) and DSC (MRE 22.0%), voxel-wise agreement was better (p<0.001) for ASL (MRE 27.2%) than for DSC (MRE 35.0%). Visually, ASL overestimated CBF near larger arteries, and DSC underestimated CBF in non-enhancing tumors with tiny capillaries. Conclusion: While neither ASL nor DSC is fully comparable to
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.