Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 577

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Evaluation of Liver Diffusion Isotropy and Characterization of Focal Hepatic Lesions with Two Single-Shot Echo-planar MR Imaging Sequences: Prospective Study in 66 Patients

Taouli, Bachir, Vilgrain, Valérie, Dumont, Erik, Daire, Jean-Luc, Fan, Bo, Menu, Yves·2003·Radiology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To (a) evaluate liver diffusion isotropy, (b) compare two diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging sequences for the characterization of focal hepatic lesions by using two or four b values, and (c) determine an apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) threshold value to differentiate benign from malignant lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-six patients were examined with two single-shot echo-planar diffusion-weighted MR sequences. In the first sequence, liver diffusion isotropy was evaluated by using diffusion gradients in three directions with two b values. In the second sequence, a unidirectional diffusion gradient was used with four b values. ADCs were measured in 43 patients with 52 focal hepatic lesions more than 1 cm in diameter and in 23 patients with 14 normal and nine cirrhotic livers and were compared by using nonparametric tests. RESULTS: Diffusion in the liver parenchyma was isotropic. ADCs of focal hepatic lesions were significantly different between sequences (P <.01). The mean (+/- SD) ADCs in the first sequence were 0.94 x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec +/- 0.60 for metastases, 1.33 x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec +/- 0.13 for HCCs, 1.75 x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec +/- 0.46 for benign hepatocellular lesions, 2.95 x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec +/- 0.67 for hemangiomas, and 3.63 x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec +/- 0.56 for cysts. There was a significant difference between benign (2.45 x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec +/- 0.96, isotropic value) and malignant (1.08 x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec +/- 0.50) lesions (P <.01 for both sequences). CONCLUSION: Diffusion-weighted MR imaging can help differentiate benign from malignant hepatic lesions. The use of two b values in one direction could be sufficient for the design of MR sequences in the liver.

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.2261011904

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 577

Metadata

Authors
Taouli, B., Vilgrain, V., Dumont, E., Daire, J.-L., Fan, B., & Menu, Y.
Venue
Radiology
Published
2003-01
Volume
226
Issue
1
Pages
71-78
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2032844176
Cited by
577
References
0
FWCI
8.28
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: Evaluation of Liver Diffusion Isotropy and Characterization of Focal Hepatic Lesions with Two Single-Shot Echo-planar MR Imaging Sequences: Prospective Study in 66 Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2261011904
The paper
Taouli, B., Vilgrain, V., Dumont, E., Daire, J.-L., Fan, B., & Menu, Y. (2003). Evaluation of Liver Diffusion Isotropy and Characterization of Focal Hepatic Lesions with Two Single-Shot Echo-planar MR Imaging Sequences: Prospective Study in 66 Patients. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2261011904

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.