Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 479

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

Characterization of Focal Liver Lesions with Contrast-specific US Modes and a Sulfur Hexafluoride–filled Microbubble Contrast Agent: Diagnostic Performance and Confidence

Quaia, Emilio, Calliada, Fabrizio, Bertolotto, Michele, Rossi, Sandro, Garioni, Lorena, Rosa, Laura, Pozzi-Mucelli, Roberto·2004·Radiology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess whether characterization of solid focal liver lesions could be improved by using ultrasonographic (US) contrast-specific modes after sulfur hexafluoride-filled microbubble contrast agent injection, as compared with lesion characterization achieved with preliminary baseline US. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four hundred fifty-two solid focal hepatic lesions that were considered indeterminate at baseline gray-scale and color Doppler US were examined after microbubble contrast agent injection performed by using low-acoustic-power contrast-specific modes during the arterial (10-40 seconds after injection), portal venous (50-90 seconds after injection), and late (100-300 seconds after injection) phases. Two readers independently and retrospectively reviewed baseline and contrast material-enhanced US scans and classified each depicted lesion as malignant or benign according to standard diagnostic criteria. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (Az) were calculated by considering histologic analysis (317 patients) or contrast-enhanced helical computed tomography followed by serial US 3-6 months apart (135 patients) as the reference standards. RESULTS: Different contrast enhancement patterns were observed according to lesion characteristics. During the late phase, benign lesions were predominantly hyper- or isoechoic relative to the adjacent liver parenchyma, whereas malignant lesions were predominantly hypoechoic. Review of the contrast-enhanced US scans after baseline image review yielded significantly improved diagnostic performance (P <.05). Overall diagnostic accuracy was 49% before versus 85% after review of the contrast-enhanced scan for reader 1 and 51% before versus 88% after review of the contrast-enhanced scan for reader 2. Diagnostic confidence-that is, the Az-was 0.820 before versus 0.968 after review of the contrast-enhanced scan for reader 1 and 0.831 before versus 0.978 after review of the contrast-enhanced scan for reader 2. CONCLUSION: The use of contrast-specific modes with a sulfur hexafluoride contrast agent led to improved characterization of solid focal liver 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.2322031401

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

Metadata

Authors
Quaia, E., Calliada, F., Bertolotto, M., Rossi, S., Garioni, L., Rosa, L., & Pozzi-Mucelli, R.
Venue
Radiology
Published
2004-08
Volume
232
Issue
2
Pages
420-430
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2057618977
Cited by
479
References
1
FWCI
28.07
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: Characterization of Focal Liver Lesions with Contrast-specific US Modes and a Sulfur Hexafluoride–filled Microbubble Contrast Agent: Diagnostic Performance and Confidence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2322031401
The paper
Quaia, E., Calliada, F., Bertolotto, M., Rossi, S., Garioni, L., Rosa, L., & Pozzi-Mucelli, R. (2004). Characterization of Focal Liver Lesions with Contrast-specific US Modes and a Sulfur Hexafluoride–filled Microbubble Contrast Agent: Diagnostic Performance and Confidence. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2322031401

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.