The DOI matches its Crossref record; 100 of the 100 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Quantitative imaging biomarkers alliance (QIBA) recommendations for improved precision of DWI and DCE‐MRI derived biomarkers in multicenter oncology trials
Open accessAbstract
Physiological properties of tumors can be measured both in vivo and noninvasively by diffusion‐weighted imaging and dynamic contrast‐enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Although these techniques have been used for more than two decades to study tumor diffusion, perfusion, and/or permeability, the methods and studies on how to reduce measurement error and bias in the derived imaging metrics is still lacking in the literature. This is of paramount importance because the objective is to translate these quantitative imaging biomarkers (QIBs) into clinical trials, and ultimately in clinical practice. Standardization of the image acquisition using appropriate phantoms is the first step from a technical performance standpoint. The next step is to assess whether the imaging metrics have clinical value and meet the requirements for being a QIB as defined by the Radiological Society of North America's Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA). The goal and mission of QIBA and the National Cancer Institute Quantitative Imaging Network (QIN) initiatives are to provide technical performance standards (QIBA profiles) and QIN tools for producing reliable QIBs for use in the clinical imaging community. Some of QIBA's development of quantitative diffusion‐weighted imaging and dynamic contrast‐enhanced QIB profiles has been hampered by the lack of literature for repeatability and reproducibility of the derived QIBs. The available research on this topic is scant and is not in sync with improvements or upgrades in MRI technology over the years. This review focuses on the need for QIBs in oncology applications and emphasizes the importance of the assessment of their reproducibility and repeatability. Level of Evidence: 5 Technical Efficacy Stage: 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:e101–e121.
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
Tofts, P. S., Brix, G., Buckley, D. L., Evelhoch, J. L., Henderson, E., Knopp, M. V., Larsson, H. B. W., Lee, T.-Y., Mayr, N. A., Parker, G. J. M., et al. (1999) · Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · doi:10.1002/(sici)1522-2586(199909)10:3<223::aid-jmri2>3.0.co;2-s · Cited by 3,143
PI-RADS Prostate Imaging – Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2
Weinreb, J. C., Barentsz, J. O., Choyke, P. L., Cornud, F., Haider, M. A., Macura, K. J., Margolis, D., Schnall, M. D., Shtern, F., Tempany, C. M., et al. (2016) · European Urology · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052 · Cited by 2,951
Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging as a Cancer Biomarker: Consensus and Recommendations
Padhani, A. R., Liu, G., Mu-Koh, D., Chenevert, T. L., Thoeny, H. C., Takahara, T., Dzik-Jurasz, A., Ross, B. D., Van Cauteren, M., Collins, D., et al. (2009) · Neoplasia · doi:10.1593/neo.81328 · Cited by 1,989
Self-citationMagnetic resonance fingerprinting
Ma, D., Gulani, V., Seiberlich, N., Liu, K., Sunshine, J. L., Duerk, J. L., & Griswold, M. A. (2013) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11971 · Cited by 1,577
Modeling tracer kinetics in dynamic Gd‐DTPA MR imaging
Tofts, P. S. (1997) · Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · doi:10.1002/jmri.1880070113 · Cited by 1,478
Holz, M., Heil, S. R., & Sacco, A. (2000) · Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics · doi:10.1039/b005319h · Cited by 1,419
Imaging biomarker roadmap for cancer studies
O'Connor, J. P. B., Aboagye, E. O., Adams, J. E., Aerts, H. J. W. L., Barrington, S. F., Beer, A. J., Boellaard, R., Bohndiek, S. E., Brady, M., Brown, G., et al. (2017) · Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.162 · Cited by 1,091
Self-citationMRI Evaluation of the Contralateral Breast in Women with Recently Diagnosed Breast Cancer
Lehman, C. D., Gatsonis, C., Kuhl, C. K., Hendrick, R. E., Pisano, E. D., Hanna, L., Peacock, S., Smazal, S. F., Maki, D. D., Julian, T. B., et al. (2007) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa065447 · Cited by 945
Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging of the Liver
Taouli, B., & Koh, D.-M. (2010) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.09090021 · Cited by 810
Biological applications of scanning tunnelling microscopy
(1993) · Analytical Proceedings · doi:10.1039/ap9933000055 · Cited by 794
Cited by
Friesen, E., Hari, K., Sheft, M., Thiessen, J. D., & Martin, M. (2024) · Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1007/s10334-024-01160-z · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Shukla‐Dave, A., Obuchowski, N. A., Chenevert, T. L., Jambawalikar, S., Schwartz, L. H., Malyarenko, D., Huang, W., Noworolski, S. M., Young, R. J., Shiroishi, M. S., Kim, H., Coolens, C., Laue, H., Chung, C., Rosen, M., Boss, M., & Jackson, E. F.
- Venue
- Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-11-19
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- e101-e121
- ISSN
- 1053-1807 (ISSN-L)
- 1522-2586
- OpenAlex
- W2901253186
- Cited by
- 389
- References
- 100
- FWCI
- 17.48
- 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: Quantitative imaging biomarkers alliance (QIBA) recommendations for improved precision of DWI and DCE‐MRI derived biomarkers in multicenter oncology trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jmri.26518
- The paper
- Shukla‐Dave, A., Obuchowski, N. A., Chenevert, T. L., Jambawalikar, S., Schwartz, L. H., Malyarenko, D., Huang, W., Noworolski, S. M., Young, R. J., Shiroishi, M. S., Kim, H., Coolens, C., Laue, H., Chung, C., Rosen, M., Boss, M., & Jackson, E. F. (2019). Quantitative imaging biomarkers alliance (QIBA) recommendations for improved precision of DWI and DCE‐MRI derived biomarkers in multicenter oncology trials. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26518
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.