Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,193

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: Standardization of Terminology and Reporting Criteria

Open access
Goldberg, S. Nahum, Grassi, Clement J., Cardella, John F., Charboneau, J. William, Dodd, Gerald D., Dupuy, Damian E., Gervais, Debra, Gillams, Alice R., Kane, Robert A., Lee, Fred T., Livraghi, Tito, McGahan, John, Phillips, David A., Rhim, Hyunchul, Silverman, Stuart G.·2005·Radiology

Abstract

The field of interventional oncology with use of image-guided tumor ablation requires standardization of terminology and reporting criteria to facilitate effective communication of ideas and appropriate comparison between treatments that use different technologies, such as chemical (ethanol or acetic acid) ablation, and thermal therapies, such as radiofrequency, laser, microwave, ultrasound, and cryoablation. This document provides a framework that will hopefully facilitate the clearest communication between investigators and will provide the greatest flexibility in comparison between the many new, exciting, and emerging technologies. An appropriate vehicle for reporting the various aspects of image-guided ablation therapy, including classification of therapies and procedure terms, appropriate descriptors of imaging guidance, and terminology to define imaging and pathologic findings, are outlined. 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 intention that adherence to the recommendations 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.2353042205

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 1,193

Metadata

Authors
Goldberg, S. N., Grassi, C. J., Cardella, J. F., Charboneau, J. W., Dodd, G. D., Dupuy, D. E., Gervais, D., Gillams, A. R., Kane, R. A., Lee, F. T., Livraghi, T., McGahan, J., Phillips, D. A., Rhim, H., & Silverman, S. G.
Venue
Radiology
Published
2005-06
Volume
235
Issue
3
Pages
728-739
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2168434023
Cited by
1,193
References
1
FWCI
32.39
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: Image-guided Tumor Ablation: Standardization of Terminology and Reporting Criteria. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2353042205
The paper
Goldberg, S. N., Grassi, C. J., Cardella, J. F., Charboneau, J. W., Dodd, G. D., Dupuy, D. E., Gervais, D., Gillams, A. R., Kane, R. A., Lee, F. T., Livraghi, T., McGahan, J., Phillips, D. A., Rhim, H., & Silverman, S. G. (2005). Image-guided Tumor Ablation: Standardization of Terminology and Reporting Criteria. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2353042205

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.