https://www.selleckchem.com/pr....oducts/diabzi-sting-
72 vs. 23.88, p = 0.911) and lesion-to-liver contrast-to-noise ratio (mean, 14.65 vs. 15.41, p = 0.527) were comparable between MUSE-DWI and cDWI. Solid lesion characterization results were comparably accurate between MUSE-DWI and cDWI (reader average area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.985 vs. 0.986, p = 0.48. The detectability of lesions was better in MUSE-DWI than in cDWI (reader consensus, 83.7 % [41/49] vs. 67.3 % [33/49], p = 0.021). MUSE-DWI can provide multi-shot liver DWI with les
Like
Comment
Share
