Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Imaging parameters in the three imaging systems used for the patient population.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Imaging parameters in the three imaging systems used for the volunteer population.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Figure 1.

Representative ADC-images.

Representative ADC-images positioned at the same level of the left lobe of the liver from the same volunteer in all three scanners (A–C). Inhomogeneous signal is seen particularly in the left lobe of the liver with the first generation 3 T scanner (B).

More »

Figure 1 Expand

Figure 2.

Representative source data from all three MR-scanners.

Representative source data images taken from the 1.5 T MR scanner (A), the first generation 3 T MR-scanner (B) and the second-generation 3 T MR-scanner (C) show that the second-generation 3 T MR-scanner yields higher signal to noise ratio throughout all b-values which is particularly well appreciated at the higher b-values.

More »

Figure 2 Expand

Table 3.

Mean ADC values (×10−3 mm2/s) in the patient population.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Mean ADC values (×10−3 mm2/s) in the volunteer population.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Figure 3.

Comparison of renal ADC-values between all three MR-scanners.

Bland-Altman plot of mean ADC values from the right kidney comparing the 1.5 T system with the (A) first generation 3 T and (B) second generation 3 T MR-scanners in the volunteer population. The mean ADC values are similar amongst all three systems. (x-axis: average/y-axis: difference of ADC at 1.5 T and the corresponding 3 T systems (×10-3 mm3/s)).

More »

Figure 3 Expand

Table 5.

Correlation coefficients (r) of mean ADC values between the three systems.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Figure 4.

Comparison of hepatic ADC-values between all three MR-scanners.

Bland-Altman plot of mean ADC values from the left lobe of the liver comparing the 1.5 T system with the (A) first generation 3 T and (B) second generation 3 T scanners in volunteers. Mean ADC values of the first generation 3 T are on average 0.68×10−3 mm2/s lower than those measured on the 1.5 T system. Mean ADC values are similar in the 1.5 T and second generation 3 T scanners. (x-axis: average/y-axis: difference of ADC at 1.5 T and the corresponding 3 T systems (×10-3 mm3/s)).

More »

Figure 4 Expand

Figure 5.

Comparison of pancreatic ADC-values between all three MR-scanners.

Bland-Altman plot of mean ADC values from the head of the pancreas comparing the 1.5 T system with the (a) first generation 3 T and (b) second generation 3 T scanners in voluteers. Mean ADC values of the first generation 3 T are on average 0.19×10−3 mm2/s lower than those measured on the 1.5 T system. Mean ADC values are similar in the 1.5 T and second generation 3 T scanners. (x-axis: average/y-axis: difference of ADC at 1.5 T and the corresponding 3 T systems (×10-3 mm3/s)).

More »

Figure 5 Expand