The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Utility of diffusion‐weighted MRI in distinguishing benign and malignant hepatic lesions
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: To evaluate apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values for characterization of a variety of focal liver lesions and specifically for differentiation of solid benign lesions (focal nodular hyperplasia [FNH] and adenomas) from solid malignant neoplasms (metastases and hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC]) in a large case series. Materials and Methods: A total of 542 lesions in 382 patients were evaluated. ADC values were measured in 166 hemangiomas, 112 hepatomas, 107 metastases, 95 cysts, 10 abscesses, 43 FNH, and nine adenomas. ADCs of 1.5 and 1.6 (×10−3 mm 2/second) were selected as threshold values to separate benign and malignant lesions. Sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) were calculated. Comparisons were carried out with studentized range test. Results: There was high interobserver agreement in ADC measurements for all lesion types. The mean ADCs for cysts was 3.40 (×10 −3 mm 2/second), hemangiomas 2.26, FNH 1.79, adenomas 1.49, abscesses 1.97, HCC 1.53, and metastases 1.50. The mean ADC for benign lesions was 2.50 and for malignant lesions was 1.52. Cysts were easily distinguished from other lesions. There was, however, overlap between solid benign and malignant lesions. Conclusion: Benign lesions have higher mean ADC values than malignant lesions. However, ADC values of solid benign lesions (FNH and adenomas) are similar to malignant lesions (metastases, HCC) limiting the value of diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) for differentiating solid liver masses. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2010;32:138–147. © 2010 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
Parikh, T., Drew, S. J., Lee, V. S., Wong, S., Hecht, E. M., Babb, J. S., & Taouli, B. (2008) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2463070432 · Cited by 560
Gass, A., Niendorf, T., & Hirsch, J. G. (2001) · Journal of the Neurological Sciences · doi:10.1016/s0022-510x(01)00487-7 · Cited by 178
Coenegrachts, K., Delanote, J., Ter Beek, L., Haspeslagh, M., Bipat, S., Stoker, J., Van Kerkhove, F., Steyaert, L., Rigauts, H., & W Casselman, J. (2007) · The British Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1259/bjr/33156643 · Cited by 149
Metadata
- Authors
- Miller, F. H., Hammond, N., Siddiqi, A. J., Shroff, S., Khatri, G., Wang, Y., Merrick, L. B., & Nikolaidis, P.
- Venue
- Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-06-23
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 138-147
- ISSN
- 1053-1807 (ISSN-L)
- 1522-2586
- OpenAlex
- W2486027786
- Cited by
- 188
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 12.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Utility of diffusion‐weighted MRI in distinguishing benign and malignant hepatic lesions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jmri.22235
- The paper
- Miller, F. H., Hammond, N., Siddiqi, A. J., Shroff, S., Khatri, G., Wang, Y., Merrick, L. B., & Nikolaidis, P. (2010). Utility of diffusion‐weighted MRI in distinguishing benign and malignant hepatic lesions. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.22235
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.