Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 174

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Liver Tumor Characterization: Comparison Between Liver-specific Gadoxetic Acid Disodium-enhanced MRI and Biphasic CT-A Multicenter Trial

Halavaara, Juha, Breuer, Josy, Ayuso, Carmen, Balzer, Thomas, Bellin, Marie-France, Blomqvist, Lennart, Carter, Rick, Grazioli, Luigi, Hammerstingl, Renate, Huppertz, Alexander, Jung, Gregor, Krause, Denis, Laghi, Andrea, Leen, Edward, Lupatelli, Luciano, Marsili, Luca, Martin, Julio, Pretorius, E. Scott, Reinhold, Caroline, Stiskal, Michael, Stolpen, Alan H.·2006·Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In our multi center trial we compared the potentials of biphasic contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) and a novel tissue-specific magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) contrast agent gadoxetic acid disodium in liver lesion characterization. METHODS: A total of 176 patients with 252 liver lesions were analyzed. There were 104 malignant and 148 benign lesions. High-field strength (1.0 T or 1.5 T) MR systems with T1-and T2-weighted sequences were used with and without fat suppression. After gadoxetic acid disodium injection, dynamic imaging and hepatocyte phase MR imaging were performed. Biphasic with 150 mg I/kg of body weight (100-200 mL) spiral CT was also performed. Image reading consisted of on-site (by study investigators) and fully blinded off-site (by E.S.P; C.R; and A.S) evaluations. The classification (benign or malignant) and characterization (lesion type) outcomes of both techniques were assessed. All imaging results were verified against a standard of reference. RESULTS: Both on-site and off-site evaluations demonstrated increases in the lesion classification accuracy with gadoxetic acid disodium-enhanced MRI when compared with spiral CT. This improvement was also shown for characterization. Gadoxetic acid disodium was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Gadoxetic acid disodium offers a safe and diagnostically powerful tool for the evaluation of patients with focal liver lesions with a reliable assessment of lesion classification and characterization.

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 · 10.1097/00004728-200605000-00001

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 174

Metadata

Authors
Halavaara, J., Breuer, J., Ayuso, C., Balzer, T., Bellin, M.-F., Blomqvist, L., Carter, R., Grazioli, L., Hammerstingl, R., Huppertz, A., Jung, G., Krause, D., Laghi, A., Leen, E., Lupatelli, L., Marsili, L., Martin, J., Pretorius, E. S., Reinhold, C., Stiskal, M., & Stolpen, A. H.
Venue
Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography
Published
2006-05
Volume
30
Issue
3
Pages
345-354
ISSN
0363-8715 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2091148531
Cited by
174
References
0
FWCI
8.06
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: Liver Tumor Characterization: Comparison Between Liver-specific Gadoxetic Acid Disodium-enhanced MRI and Biphasic CT-A Multicenter Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00004728-200605000-00001
The paper
Halavaara, J., Breuer, J., Ayuso, C., Balzer, T., Bellin, M.-F., Blomqvist, L., Carter, R., Grazioli, L., Hammerstingl, R., Huppertz, A., Jung, G., Krause, D., Laghi, A., Leen, E., Lupatelli, L., Marsili, L., Martin, J., Pretorius, E. S., Reinhold, C., . . . Stolpen, A. H. (2006). Liver Tumor Characterization: Comparison Between Liver-specific Gadoxetic Acid Disodium-enhanced MRI and Biphasic CT-A Multicenter Trial. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004728-200605000-00001

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.