Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 375

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Image-guided Tumor Ablation: Proposal for Standardization of Terms and Reporting Criteria

Goldberg, S. Nahum, Charboneau, J. William, Dodd, Gerald D., Dupuy, Damian E., Gervais, Debra A., Gillams, Alice R., Kane, Robert A., Lee, Fred T., Livraghi, Tito, McGahan, John P., Rhim, Hyunchul, Silverman, Stuart G., Solbiati, Luigi, Vogl, Thomas J., Wood, Bradford J.·2003·Radiology

Abstract

The field of image-guided tumor ablation requires standardization of terms and reporting criteria to facilitate effective communication of ideas and appropriate comparison between treatments with different technologies, such as chemical ablation (ethanol or acetic acid) and thermal therapies, such as radiofrequency, laser, microwave, ultrasound, and cryoablation. On the basis of this premise, a working committee was established with the goal of producing a proposal on such standardization. The intent of the Working Group is to provide a framework that will facilitate the clearest communication between investigators and will provide the greatest flexibility in comparisons between the many new, exciting, and emerging technologies. The members of the Working Group now propose a vehicle for reporting the various aspects of image-guided ablation therapy, including classifications of therapies and procedures, appropriate descriptors of image guidance, and terms to define imaging and pathologic findings. Methods for standardizing the reporting of follow-up findings and complications and other important aspects that require attention when reporting clinical results are addressed. It is the group's hope and intention that adherence to the recommendations of this proposal will facilitate achievement of the group's main objective: improved precision and communication in this field that lead to more accurate comparison of technologies and results and ultimately to improved patient outcomes.

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.2282021787

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 375

Metadata

Authors
Goldberg, S. N., Charboneau, J. W., Dodd, G. D., Dupuy, D. E., Gervais, D. A., Gillams, A. R., Kane, R. A., Lee, F. T., Livraghi, T., McGahan, J. P., Rhim, H., Silverman, S. G., Solbiati, L., Vogl, T. J., & Wood, B. J.
Venue
Radiology
Published
2003-08
Volume
228
Issue
2
Pages
335-345
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W1969297536
Cited by
375
References
1
FWCI
20.19
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: Image-guided Tumor Ablation: Proposal for Standardization of Terms and Reporting Criteria. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2282021787
The paper
Goldberg, S. N., Charboneau, J. W., Dodd, G. D., Dupuy, D. E., Gervais, D. A., Gillams, A. R., Kane, R. A., Lee, F. T., Livraghi, T., McGahan, J. P., Rhim, H., Silverman, S. G., Solbiati, L., Vogl, T. J., & Wood, B. J. (2003). Image-guided Tumor Ablation: Proposal for Standardization of Terms and Reporting Criteria. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2282021787

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.