Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 268

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

Diagnostic performance of spectroscopic and perfusion MRI for distinction of brain tumors

Weber, M. A., Zoubaa, S., Schlieter, M., Jüttler, E., Huttner, H. B., Geletneky, K., Ittrich, C., Lichy, M. P., Kroll, A., Debus, J., Giesel, F. L., Hartmann, M., Essig, M.·2006·Neurology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of spectroscopic and perfusion MRI for glioma grading and for distinguishing glioblastomas from metastases and from CNS lymphomas. METHODS: The authors examined 79 consecutive patients with first detection of a brain neoplasm on nonenhanced CT scans and no therapy prior to evaluation. Spectroscopic MRI; arterial spin-labeling MRI for measuring cerebral blood flow (CBF); first-pass dynamic, susceptibility-weighted, contrast-enhanced MRI for measuring cerebral blood volume; and T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI were performed. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed, and optimum thresholds for tumor classification and glioma grading were determined. RESULTS: Perfusion MRI had a higher diagnostic performance than spectroscopic MRI. Because of a significantly higher tumor blood flow in glioblastomas compared with CNS lymphomas, a threshold value of 1.2 for CBF provided sensitivity of 97%, specificity of 80%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 94%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 89%. Because CBF was significantly higher in peritumoral nonenhancing T2-hyperintense regions of glioblastomas compared with metastases, a threshold value of 0.5 for CBF provided sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 100%, 71%, 94%, and 100%. Glioblastomas had the highest tumor blood flow values among all other glioma grades. For discrimination of glioblastomas from grade 3 gliomas, sensitivity was 97%, specificity was 50%, PPV was 84%, and NPV was 86% (CBF threshold value of 1.4), and for discrimination of glioblastomas from grade 2 gliomas, sensitivity was 94%, specificity was 78%, PPV was 94%, and NPV was 78% (CBF threshold value of 1.6). CONCLUSION: Perfusion MRI is predictive in distinguishing glioblastomas from metastases, CNS lymphomas and other gliomas vs MRI and magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

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 · 10.1212/01.wnl.0000219767.49705.9c

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 268

Metadata

Authors
Weber, M. A., Zoubaa, S., Schlieter, M., Jüttler, E., Huttner, H. B., Geletneky, K., Ittrich, C., Lichy, M. P., Kroll, A., Debus, J., Giesel, F. L., Hartmann, M., & Essig, M.
Venue
Neurology
Published
2006-06-27
Volume
66
Issue
12
Pages
1899-1906
ISSN
  • 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-632X
OpenAlex
W2162184131
Cited by
268
References
1
FWCI
4.81
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: Diagnostic performance of spectroscopic and perfusion MRI for distinction of brain tumors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1212/01.wnl.0000219767.49705.9c
The paper
Weber, M. A., Zoubaa, S., Schlieter, M., Jüttler, E., Huttner, H. B., Geletneky, K., Ittrich, C., Lichy, M. P., Kroll, A., Debus, J., Giesel, F. L., Hartmann, M., & Essig, M. (2006). Diagnostic performance of spectroscopic and perfusion MRI for distinction of brain tumors. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000219767.49705.9c

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.