Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 274

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Focal liver lesions: Comparison of dual‐phase CT and multisequence multiplanar MR imaging including dynamic gadolinium enhancement

Semelka, Richard C., Martin, Diego R., Balci, Cem, Lance, Trang·2001·Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare dual‐phase spiral computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using dynamic gadolinium enhancement for liver lesion detection and characterization. Twenty‐two consecutive patients underwent dual‐phase spiral CT and MRI for the evaluation of focal liver disease within a 1‐month period. Spiral CT and MR images were interpreted prospectively, in a blinded fashion by separate, individual, experienced investigators, to determine lesion detection and characterization. Liver lesions were confirmed by surgery and pathology in 6 patients, and by clinical and imaging follow‐up in the other 16 patients. Pathological correlation of a primary extrahepatic malignancy was available in 5 of the 16 patients who had metastatic liver disease. Spiral CT and MRI detected 53 and 63 lesions, and characterized 39 and 62 true positive lesions, respectively. A kappa statistic test was applied to assess agreement between MR and CT results. MR versus CT for lesion detection resulted in a kappa statistic of 0.54 (95% confidence interval), indicating moderate agreement, and 0.32 (95% confidence interval) for lesion characterization, indicating only slight agreement. More lesions were detected on MR images than CT images in 6 (27%) patients, with lesions detected only on MR images in 4 (18%) patients. More lesions were characterized on MR images in 9 (41%) patients. In 9 patients with a discrepancy between MR and CT findings, the MR images added information considered significant to patient management in all 9 cases. MRI was moderately superior to dual‐phase spiral CT for lesion detection, and was markedly superior for lesion characterization, with these differences having clinical significance. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2001;13:397–401. © 2001 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jmri.1057

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 274

Metadata

Authors
Semelka, R. C., Martin, D. R., Balci, C., & Lance, T.
Venue
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-03
Volume
13
Issue
3
Pages
397-401
ISSN
  • 1053-1807 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-2586
OpenAlex
W2056830117
Cited by
274
References
0
FWCI
10.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Focal liver lesions: Comparison of dual‐phase CT and multisequence multiplanar MR imaging including dynamic gadolinium enhancement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jmri.1057
The paper
Semelka, R. C., Martin, D. R., Balci, C., & Lance, T. (2001). Focal liver lesions: Comparison of dual‐phase CT and multisequence multiplanar MR imaging including dynamic gadolinium enhancement. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.1057

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.