Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 526

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Differentiation between glioma and radiation necrosis using molecular magnetic resonance imaging of endogenous proteins and peptides

Open access
Zhou, Jinyuan, Tryggestad, Erik, Wen, Zhibo, Lal, Bachchu, Zhou, Tingting, Grossman, Rachel, Wang, Silun, Yan, Kun, Fu, De-Xue, Ford, Eric, Tyler, Betty, Blakeley, Jaishri, Laterra, John, van Zijl, Peter C M·2011·Nature Medicine

Abstract

It remains difficult to distinguish tumor recurrence from radiation necrosis after brain tumor therapy. Here we show that these lesions can be distinguished using the amide proton transfer (APT) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) signals of endogenous cellular proteins and peptides as an imaging biomarker. When comparing two models of orthotopic glioma (SF188/V+ glioma and 9L gliosarcoma) with a model of radiation necrosis in rats, we could clearly differentiate viable glioma (hyperintense) from radiation necrosis (hypointense to isointense) by APT MRI. When we irradiated rats with U87MG gliomas, the APT signals in the irradiated tumors had decreased substantially by 3 d and 6 d after radiation. The amide protons that can be detected by APT provide a unique and noninvasive MRI biomarker for distinguishing viable malignancy from radiation necrosis and predicting tumor response to therapy.

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 · 10.1038/nm.2268

Cites

27 of 27 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 27 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Zhou, J., Tryggestad, E., Wen, Z., Lal, B., Zhou, T., Grossman, R., Wang, S., Yan, K., Fu, D.-X., Ford, E., Tyler, B., Blakeley, J., Laterra, J., & van Zijl, P. C. M.
Venue
Nature Medicine
Published
2010-12-19
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
130-134
ISSN
  • 1078-8956 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-170X
OpenAlex
W2048919807
Cited by
526
References
27
FWCI
17.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

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.