Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 566

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Head and Neck Lesions: Characterization with Diffusion-weighted Echo-planar MR Imaging

Wang, Jichen, Takashima, Shodayu, Takayama, Fumiyoshi, Kawakami, Satoshi, Saito, Akitoshi, Matsushita, Tsuyoshi, Momose, Mitsuhiro, Ishiyama, Tetsuya·2001·Radiology
DOI 10.1148/radiol.2202010063
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether apparent diffusion coefficients (ADCs) calculated from diffusion-weighted echo-planar magnetic resonance (MR) images can be used to characterize head and neck lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Diffusion-weighted echo-planar MR imaging was performed with a 1.5-T MR unit in 97 head and neck lesions in 97 patients. Images were obtained with a diffusion-weighted factor, factor b, of 0, 500, and 1,000 sec/mm(2), and an ADC map was constructed. The ADCs of lesions, cerebrospinal fluid, and spinal cord were calculated. RESULTS: Acceptable images for ADC measurement were obtained in 81 (84%) patients. The mean ADC of malignant lymphomas, (0.66 +/- 0.17[SD]) x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec (n = 13), was significantly smaller (P <.001) than that of carcinomas. The mean ADC of carcinomas, (1.13 +/- 0.43) x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec (n = 36), was significantly smaller (P =.002) than that of benign solid tumors. The mean ADC of benign solid tumors, (1.56 +/- 0.51) x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec (n = 22), was significantly smaller (P =.035) than that of benign cystic lesions, (2.05 +/- 0.62) x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec (n = 10). No significant differences were seen in the mean ADC of cerebrospinal fluid and of spinal cord among four groups of lesions. When an ADC smaller than 1.22 x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec was used for predicting malignancy, the highest accuracy of 86%, with 84% sensitivity and 91% specificity, was obtained. CONCLUSION: Measurement of ADCs may be used to characterize head and neck lesions.

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.2202010063

Cites

22 of 22 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 22 references

Cited by

See all 566

Metadata

Authors
Wang, J., Takashima, S., Takayama, F., Kawakami, S., Saito, A., Matsushita, T., Momose, M., & Ishiyama, T.
Venue
Radiology
Publisher
Radiological Society of North America (RSNA)
Published
2001-09
Volume
220
Issue
3
Pages
621-630
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
DOI
10.1148/radiol.2202010063
OpenAlex
W2035359738
Cited by
566
References
22
FWCI
4.77
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: Head and Neck Lesions: Characterization with Diffusion-weighted Echo-planar MR Imaging. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2202010063
The paper
Wang, J., Takashima, S., Takayama, F., Kawakami, S., Saito, A., Matsushita, T., Momose, M., & Ishiyama, T. (2001). Head and Neck Lesions: Characterization with Diffusion-weighted Echo-planar MR Imaging. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2202010063

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.