Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 188

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 access
Miller, Frank H., Hammond, Nancy, Siddiqi, Aheed J., Shroff, Sagar, Khatri, Gaurav, Wang, Yi, Merrick, Laura B., Nikolaidis, Paul·2010·Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jmri.22235

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 3 references

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.