Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 354

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Accurate Differentiation of Focal Nodular Hyperplasia from Hepatic Adenoma at Gadobenate Dimeglumine–enhanced MR Imaging: Prospective Study

Grazioli, Luigi, Morana, Giovanni, Kirchin, Miles A., Schneider, Günther·2005·Radiology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To prospectively determine the accuracy of differentiating benign focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) from hepatic adenoma (HA) and liver adenomatosis (LA) by using gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The ethics committee at each center approved the study, and all patients provided informed consent. Seventy-three patients with confirmed FNH and 35 patients with confirmed HA (n = 27) or LA (n = 8) underwent MR imaging before (T2-weighted half-Fourier rapid acquisition with relaxation enhancement or T2-weighted fast spin-echo and T1-weighted gradient-echo [GRE] sequences) and at 25-30 seconds (arterial phase), 70-90 seconds (portal venous phase), 3-5 minutes (equilibrium phase), and 1-3 hours (delayed phase) after (T1-weighted GRE sequences only, with or without fat suppression) bolus administration of 0.1 mmol per kilogram of body weight gadobenate dimeglumine. The enhancement of 235 lesions (128 FNH, 32 HA, and 75 LA lesions) relative to the normal liver parenchyma was assessed. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and overall accuracy for the differentiation of FNH from HA and LA were determined. RESULTS: Hyper- and isointensity on T2-weighted and iso- and hypointensity on T1-weighted GRE images were noted for 177 (88.9%) of 199 lesions visible on unenhanced images. On dynamic phase images after contrast material administration, 231 (98.3%) of 235 lesions showed rapid strong enhancement during the arterial phase and appeared hyper- to isointense during portal venous and equilibrium phases. Accurate differentiation of FNH from HA and LA was not possible on the basis of precontrast or dynamic phase images alone. At 1-3 hours after contrast material enhancement, 124 (96.9%) of 128 FNHs appeared hyper- or isointense, while 107 (100%) HA and LA lesions appeared hypointense. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and overall accuracy for the differentiation of FNH from HA and LA were 96.9%, 100%, 100%, 96.4%, and 98.3%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Accurate differentiation of FNH from HA and LA is achievable on delayed T1-weighted GRE images after administration of gadobenate dimeglumine.

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.2361040338

Cites

18 of 18 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 18 references

Cited by

See all 354

Metadata

Authors
Grazioli, L., Morana, G., Kirchin, M. A., & Schneider, G.
Venue
Radiology
Published
2005-07
Volume
236
Issue
1
Pages
166-177
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2004067055
Cited by
354
References
18
FWCI
11.06
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: Accurate Differentiation of Focal Nodular Hyperplasia from Hepatic Adenoma at Gadobenate Dimeglumine–enhanced MR Imaging: Prospective Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2361040338
The paper
Grazioli, L., Morana, G., Kirchin, M. A., & Schneider, G. (2005). Accurate Differentiation of Focal Nodular Hyperplasia from Hepatic Adenoma at Gadobenate Dimeglumine–enhanced MR Imaging: Prospective Study. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2361040338

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.