Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 778

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

The Current Status of Breast MR Imaging Part I. Choice of Technique, Image Interpretation, Diagnostic Accuracy, and Transfer to Clinical Practice

Kuhl, Christiane·2007·Radiology

Abstract

Compared with mammography and breast ultrasonography, contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is a breast imaging technique that offers not only information on lesion cross-sectional morphology but also on functional lesion features such as tissue perfusion and enhancement kinetics. After an enthusiastic start to clinical breast MR imaging in the early 1990s, a variety of difficulties and obstacles were identified that hampered the transfer of the modality into clinical practice, including a lack of standardization regarding image acquisition and interpretation guidelines, a lack of MR-compatible interventional materials, and a lack of evidence regarding its diagnostic accuracy--particularly specificity and positive predictive value, as well as sensitivity for ductal carcinoma in situ. This article is the first of two on the current status of breast MR imaging. The pathophysiologic basis of breast MR and the effects on acquisition technique and diagnostic accuracy, the diverging demands of high spatial and temporal resolution, and the different approaches that exist for image acquisition are reviewed. Advantages and disadvantages of different pulse sequence parameters are discussed to help radiologists make a balanced and informed decision regarding choice of image acquisition protocol. Imaging findings in common benign and malignant changes are described, and current concepts for differential diagnosis, including the MR Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System lexicon, are discussed. Furthermore, obstacles that impeded the technique's transfer into clinical practice are discussed, and the progress made in recent years, especially regarding the development of guidelines, procedural standardization, and MR-guided interventions are outlined.

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.2442051620

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 778

Metadata

Authors
Kuhl, C.
Venue
Radiology
Published
2007-08
Volume
244
Issue
2
Pages
356-378
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2168140453
Cited by
778
References
1
FWCI
30.78
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: The Current Status of Breast MR Imaging Part I. Choice of Technique, Image Interpretation, Diagnostic Accuracy, and Transfer to Clinical Practice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2442051620
The paper
Kuhl, C. (2007). The Current Status of Breast MR Imaging Part I. Choice of Technique, Image Interpretation, Diagnostic Accuracy, and Transfer to Clinical Practice. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2442051620

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.