2022
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.210484
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Diffusion Tensor Imaging of the Knee to Predict Childhood Growth

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
10
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
1
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is noteworthy that with our technical settings, we still see visible tracts and measurable DTI metrics. This further strengthens the thesis that DTI can detect tracts in clinical patients with even larger voxels and lower b ‐values than that previously reported 17,20‐22,37 …”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It is noteworthy that with our technical settings, we still see visible tracts and measurable DTI metrics. This further strengthens the thesis that DTI can detect tracts in clinical patients with even larger voxels and lower b ‐values than that previously reported 17,20‐22,37 …”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…This further strengthens the thesis that DTI can detect tracts in clinical patients with even larger voxels and lower b ‐values than that previously reported. 17 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 37 …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…26 Predictive performance was quantified with the coefficient of determination ( R 2 ) and the root mean square error (RMSE). 12 A good, moderate, or poor fit was considered if R 2 was >0.75 to 1.00, >0.50 to 0.75, or 0.00 to 0.50, respectively. 25,35 A higher R 2 and lower RMSE indicate a better goodness of fit for prediction accuracy.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…25,35 A higher R 2 and lower RMSE indicate a better goodness of fit for prediction accuracy. 12 Bland-Altman plots were used to assess percentages of the differences (bias) between the measured Global-FI ( measured Global-FI) and regression model–predicted Global-FI ( predicted Global-FI) by the 3 assessment tools, with the 95% limits of agreement (LOA) as the mean bias ± 1.96 SD and the clinically acceptable LOA as ±10% of the mean bias. 2,21 Agreement between predicted and measured Global-FI was further quantified by SD%, the standard deviation of the percentage difference (| predicted Global-FI – measured Global-FI|/ measured Global-FI × 100%), with a smaller SD% indicating better agreement and a clinically acceptable SD% of <10%.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The relationship between SAU-FI (the predictor variable) and overall FI (the outcome variable) was evaluated by linear regression 25 . The predictive performance of each SAU-FI was assessed on the basis of agreement and goodness-of-fit, which were quantified with the coefficient of determination (R 2 ) and the root-mean-square error (RMSE), respectively 26 . Fit was considered good, moderate, or poor if R 2 was 0.75 to 1.00, 0.50 to <0.75, or 0.00 to <0.50, respectively 27,28 .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%