The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Is Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Associated with Clinical Risk Scores for Prostate Cancers that Are Visible on 3-T MR Images?
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: To investigate whether apparent diffusion coefficients (ADCs) derived from diffusion-weighted (DW) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging at 3 T correlate with the clinical risk of prostate cancer in patients with tumors that are visible on MR images, with MR imaging/transrectal ultrasonography (US) fusion-guided biopsy as a reference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-eight consecutive patients (median age, 60 years; median serum prostate-specific antigen value, 6.3 ng/mL) who underwent DW imaging during 3-T MR imaging with an endorectal coil were included in this retrospective institutional review board-approved study, and informed consent was obtained from each patient. Patients underwent targeted MR imaging/transrectal US fusion-guided prostate biopsy. Mean ADCs of cancerous target tumors were correlated with Gleason and D'Amico clinical risk scores. The true risk group rate and predictive value of the mean ADC for classifying a tumor by its D'Amico clinical risk score was determined by using linear discriminant and receiver operating characteristic analyses. RESULTS: A significant negative correlation was found between mean ADCs of tumors in the peripheral zone and their Gleason scores (P = .003; Spearman ρ = -0.60) and D'Amico clinical risk scores (P < .0001; Spearman ρ = -0.69). ADC was found to distinguish tumors in the peripheral zone with intermediate to high clinical risk from those with low clinical risk with a correct classification rate of 0.73. CONCLUSION: There is a significant negative correlation between ADCs and Gleason and D'Amico clinical risk scores. ADCs may therefore be useful in predicting the aggressiveness of prostate cancer. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.10100667/-/DC1.
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
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2025) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 352,181
An Introduction to the Bootstrap
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-4541-9 · Cited by 21,230
D'Amico, A. V. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.280.11.969 · Cited by 4,523
Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis
Härdle, W., & Simar, L. (2003) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-05802-2 · Cited by 2,263
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-citationSugahara, T., Korogi, Y., Kochi, M., Ikushima, I., Shigematu, Y., Hirai, T., Okuda, T., Liang, L., Ge, Y., Komohara, Y., et al. (1999) · Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · doi:10.1002/(sici)1522-2586(199901)9:1<53::aid-jmri7>3.0.co;2-2 · Cited by 1,163
Radical Prostatectomy versus Watchful Waiting in Early Prostate Cancer
Bill-Axelson, A., Holmberg, L., Ruutu, M., Häggman, M., Andersson, S.-O., Bratell, S., Spångberg, A., Busch, C., Nordling, S., Garmo, H., et al. (2005) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa043739 · Cited by 1,111
Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium
Partin, A. W., Mangold, L. A., Lamm, D. M., Walsh, P. C., Epstein, J. I., & Pearson, J. D. (2001) · Urology · doi:10.1016/s0090-4295(01)01441-8 · Cited by 1,038
Differentiation of clinically benign and malignant breast lesions using diffusion‐weighted imaging
Guo, Y., Cai, Y., Cai, Z., Gao, Y., An, N., Ma, L., Mahankali, S., & Gao, J. (2002) · Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · doi:10.1002/jmri.10140 · Cited by 714
Stephenson, A. J., Scardino, P. T., Eastham, J. A., Bianco, F. J., Dotan, Z. A., Fearn, P. A., & Kattan, M. W. (2006) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djj190 · Cited by 623
Cited by
Clinical intravoxel incoherent motion and diffusion MR imaging: Past, present, and future
Iima, M., & Le Bihan, D. (2016) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2015150244 · Cited by 498
Gnep, K., Fargeas, A., Gutiérrez-Carvajal, R. E., Commandeur, F., Mathieu, R., Ospina, J. D., Rolland, Y., Rohou, T., Vincendeau, S., Hatt, M., et al. (2017) · Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · doi:10.1002/jmri.25335 · Cited by 162
Vignati, A., Mazzetti, S., Giannini, V, Russo, F., Bollito, E., Porpiglia, F., Stasi, M., & Regge, D. (2015) · Physics in Medicine & Biology · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/60/7/2685 · Cited by 122
Metadata
- Authors
- Turkbey, B., Shah, V. P., Pang, Y., Bernardo, M., Xu, S., Kruecker, J., Locklin, J., Baccala, A. A., Rastinehad, A. R., Merino, M. J., Shih, J. H., Wood, B. J., Pinto, P. A., & Choyke, P. L.
- Venue
- Radiology
- Published
- 2011-02
- Volume
- 258
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 488-495
- ISSN
- 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2156505206
- Cited by
- 389
- References
- 23
- FWCI
- 19.92
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Is Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Associated with Clinical Risk Scores for Prostate Cancers that Are Visible on 3-T MR Images? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.10100667
- The paper
- Turkbey, B., Shah, V. P., Pang, Y., Bernardo, M., Xu, S., Kruecker, J., Locklin, J., Baccala, A. A., Rastinehad, A. R., Merino, M. J., Shih, J. H., Wood, B. J., Pinto, P. A., & Choyke, P. L. (2011). Is Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Associated with Clinical Risk Scores for Prostate Cancers that Are Visible on 3-T MR Images? Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10100667
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.
