Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 250

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quantitative Analysis of Multiparametric Prostate MR Images: Differentiation between Prostate Cancer and Normal Tissue and Correlation with Gleason Score—A Computer-aided Diagnosis Development Study

Open access
Peng, Yahui, Jiang, Yulei, Yang, Cheng, Brown, Jeremy Bancroft, Antic, Tatjana, Sethi, Ila, Schmid-Tannwald, Christine, Giger, Maryellen L., Eggener, Scott E., Oto, Aytekin·2013·Radiology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the potential utility of a number of parameters obtained at T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast material-enhanced multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) of prostate cancer and assessment of cancer aggressiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant study, multiparametric MR images were acquired with an endorectal coil in 48 patients with prostate cancer (median age, 62.5 years; age range, 44-73 years) who subsequently underwent prostatectomy. A radiologist and a pathologist identified 104 regions of interest (ROIs) (61 cancer ROIs, 43 normal ROIs) based on correlation of histologic and MR findings. The 10th percentile and average apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values, T2-weighted signal intensity histogram skewness, and Tofts K(trans) were analyzed, both individually and combined, via linear discriminant analysis, with receiver operating characteristic curve analysis with area under the curve (AUC) as figure of merit, to distinguish cancer foci from normal foci. Spearman rank-order correlation (ρ) was calculated between cancer foci Gleason score (GS) and image features. RESULTS: AUC (maximum likelihood estimate ± standard error) values in the differentiation of prostate cancer from normal foci of 10th percentile ADC, average ADC, T2-weighted skewness, and K(trans) were 0.92 ± 0.03, 0.89 ± 0.03, 0.86 ± 0.04, and 0.69 ± 0.04, respectively. The combination of 10th percentile ADC, average ADC, and T2-weighted skewness yielded an AUC value for the same task of 0.95 ± 0.02. GS correlated moderately with 10th percentile ADC (ρ = -0.34, P = .008), average ADC (ρ = -0.30, P = .02), and K(trans) (ρ = 0.38, P = .004). CONCLUSION: The combination of 10th percentile ADC, average ADC, and T2-weighted skewness with CAD is promising in the differentiation of prostate cancer from normal tissue. ADC image features and K(trans) moderately correlate with GS.

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 · 10.1148/radiol.13121454

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 250

Metadata

Authors
Peng, Y., Jiang, Y., Yang, C., Brown, J. B., Antic, T., Sethi, I., Schmid-Tannwald, C., Giger, M. L., Eggener, S. E., & Oto, A.
Venue
Radiology
Published
2013-06
Volume
267
Issue
3
Pages
787-796
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2112224175
Cited by
250
References
2
FWCI
23.53
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: Quantitative Analysis of Multiparametric Prostate MR Images: Differentiation between Prostate Cancer and Normal Tissue and Correlation with Gleason Score—A Computer-aided Diagnosis Development Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.13121454
The paper
Peng, Y., Jiang, Y., Yang, C., Brown, J. B., Antic, T., Sethi, I., Schmid-Tannwald, C., Giger, M. L., Eggener, S. E., & Oto, A. (2013). Quantitative Analysis of Multiparametric Prostate MR Images: Differentiation between Prostate Cancer and Normal Tissue and Correlation with Gleason Score—A Computer-aided Diagnosis Development Study. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13121454

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.