Journal of the American College of Radiology最新文献

英文中文

Patient-Friendly Summary of the ACR Appropriateness Criteria®: Sudden Onset of Cold, Painful Leg ACR 适宜性标准®患者友好型摘要：突发性腿冷、疼痛。

IF 4 3区医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING

Journal of the American College of Radiology

Pub Date : 2024-12-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2024.04.018

Avani Shinde MD , Sonya Bhole MD

引用次数: 0

Transcending Language Barriers: Can ChatGPT Be the Key to Enhancing Multilingual Accessibility in Health Care? 跨越语言障碍：ChatGPT 能否成为提高医疗保健领域多语种无障碍环境的关键？

IF 4 3区医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING

Journal of the American College of Radiology

Pub Date : 2024-12-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2024.05.009

Vaibhav Gulati MD , Shambo Guha Roy MD , Ahmed Moawad MD , Daniela Garcia MD , Aparna Babu MD , Jeffrey D. Poot DO , Oleg M. Teytelboym MD

Objective

To explore the capabilities of Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) for the purpose of simplifying and translating radiology reports into Spanish, Hindi, and Russian languages, with comparisons to its performance in simplifying to the English language.

Methods

Fifty deidentified abdomen-pelvis CT reports were fed to ChatGPT (4.0), instructing it to simplify and translate the report. The processed reports were rated on factual correctness (category 1), potential harmful errors (category 2), completeness (category 3), and explanation of medical terms (category 4). The translated versions were also rated on the quality of translation (category 5). The scores in each category were compared between the translated versions and each translated version was compared with the English version in the first four categories. The original reports and the simplified English reports were rated on the Flesch Reading Ease Score and the Flesch Kincaid Grade Level.

Results

The Spanish translation outperformed the Hindi and Russian version significantly in categories 1 and 3 (P < .05). All translated versions performed significantly worse compared with the English version in category 4 (P < .001). Notably, the Hindi translated version performed significantly worse in all four categories (P < .05). The Russian translated version was also significantly worse in category 3 (P < .05). In the first three categories, the Spanish translation, and in the first two categories, the Russian translation demonstrated no statistically significant difference from the English version. No statistically significant difference was observed in the Flesch Reading Ease Score and Flesch Kincaid Grade Level of the simplified English reports. Typographical errors in the original reports negatively affected the translation.

Conclusion

ChatGPT demonstrates potential ability in translating reports and communicating pertinent clinical information with limited errors. More training and tailoring are required for languages that are not as commonly used in medical literature. Large language models can be used for translating and simplifying radiology reports, potentially improving access to health care and helping reduce health care costs.

目的探索 ChatGPT 将放射学报告简化并翻译成西班牙语、印地语和俄语的能力，并与 ChatGPT 简化为英语的性能进行比较。对处理后的报告在事实正确性（I）、潜在有害错误（II）、完整性（III）和医学术语解释（IV）方面进行评分。翻译版本也根据翻译质量（V）进行评分。对各翻译版本在每个类别中的得分进行比较，并将每个翻译版本与英文版本在前四个类别中的得分进行比较。根据弗莱施阅读容易程度评分（FRES）和弗莱施-金凯德等级评分（FKRL）对原始报告和简化英文报告进行评分：结果：西班牙文译本在第一类和第三类中的表现明显优于印地文和俄文译本（pConclusion）：ChatGPT 展示了翻译报告和传达相关临床信息的潜在能力，而且错误有限。对于医学文献中不常用的语言，需要进行更多的培训和调整。LLM 可用于翻译和简化放射学报告，有可能改善医疗服务的可及性，并有助于降低医疗成本。

{"title":"Transcending Language Barriers: Can ChatGPT Be the Key to Enhancing Multilingual Accessibility in Health Care?","authors":"Vaibhav Gulati MD , Shambo Guha Roy MD , Ahmed Moawad MD , Daniela Garcia MD , Aparna Babu MD , Jeffrey D. Poot DO , Oleg M. Teytelboym MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.05.009","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.05.009","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To explore the capabilities of Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) for the purpose of simplifying and translating<span> radiology<span> reports into Spanish, Hindi, and Russian languages, with comparisons to its performance in simplifying to the English language.</span></span></div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Fifty deidentified abdomen-pelvis CT reports were fed to ChatGPT (4.0), instructing it to simplify and translate the report. The processed reports were rated on factual correctness (category 1), potential harmful errors (category 2), completeness (category 3), and explanation of medical terms (category 4). The translated versions were also rated on the quality of translation (category 5). The scores in each category were compared between the translated versions and each translated version was compared with the English version in the first four categories. The original reports and the simplified English reports were rated on the Flesch Reading Ease Score and the Flesch Kincaid Grade Level.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The Spanish translation outperformed the Hindi and Russian version significantly in categories 1 and 3 (<em>P</em> < .05). All translated versions performed significantly worse compared with the English version in category 4 (<em>P</em> < .001). Notably, the Hindi translated version performed significantly worse in all four categories (<em>P</em> < .05). The Russian translated version was also significantly worse in category 3 (<em>P</em> < .05). In the first three categories, the Spanish translation, and in the first two categories, the Russian translation demonstrated no statistically significant difference from the English version. No statistically significant difference was observed in the Flesch Reading Ease Score and Flesch Kincaid Grade Level of the simplified English reports. Typographical errors in the original reports negatively affected the translation.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>ChatGPT demonstrates potential ability in translating reports and communicating pertinent clinical information with limited errors. More training and tailoring are required for languages that are not as commonly used in medical literature. Large language models<span> can be used for translating and simplifying radiology reports, potentially improving access to health care and helping reduce health care costs.</span></div></div>","PeriodicalId":49044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Radiology","volume":"21 12","pages":"Pages 1888-1895"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141332688","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Patient, Referring Physician, and Radiologist Opinions Over Time on Providing Patients Access to Radiology Reports: A Systematic Review 患者、转诊医生和放射科医生对向患者提供放射报告的意见随时间变化：系统回顾

IF 4 3区医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING

Journal of the American College of Radiology

Pub Date : 2024-12-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2024.08.006

Mohammad Alarifi PhD, MS , M. Courtney Hughes PhD, MS , Abdulrahman M. Jabour PhD, MS , Yazeed Alashban PhD, MS , Erin Vernon PhD, MA

Objective

Patients increasingly have access to their radiology reports. This systematic review examined the opinions of patients, referring physicians, and radiologists over time on providing patients full access to their radiology reports.

Methods

A systematic review examining quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PROSPERO CRD42023466502). Our search was conducted through September 30, 2023, and spanned five databases (CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, ProQuest, PubMed, and Scopus). The studies included were peer-reviewed journal articles about the opinions of patients, referring physicians, or radiologists regarding giving patients unrestricted access to their radiology reports.

Results

After screening 4,520 articles, the full texts of 439 studies were assessed for eligibility. Thirty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies showed that, over time, patients have consistently expressed a strong desire to access radiology reports, and referring physicians and radiologists have varied opinions about patient access to radiology reports. The main advantages of patient access found in the studies were enhanced understanding and empowerment and increased patient-physician engagement and communication. The main disadvantages were difficulties in patients understanding reports and patient anxiety from accessing reports. Referring physicians’ opinions and radiologists’ opinions were found in less than 20% (six studies) and 10% (three studies), respectively.

Discussion

The studies show patients have desired access to radiology reports over time. Future research should elicit the opinions of referring physicians and radiologists to enable a more informed design of patient access to radiology reports.

目的：越来越多的患者可以获取他们的放射学报告。本系统综述研究了患者、转诊医生和放射科医生长期以来对向患者提供全面的放射学报告的意见：采用系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目（PRISMA）指南（PROSPERO CRD42023466502）对定量、定性和混合方法研究进行了系统综述。我们的检索工作一直持续到 2023 年 9 月 30 日，共使用了五个数据库（CINAHL Plus、Web of Science、ProQuest、PubMed 和 Scopus）。所纳入的研究均为同行评审期刊文章，内容涉及患者、转诊医生或放射科医生对允许患者不受限制地查阅放射报告的看法：在筛选了 4520 篇文章后，对 439 项研究的全文进行了资格评估。有 33 项研究符合纳入标准。这些研究表明，随着时间的推移，患者一直表达了获取放射学报告的强烈愿望，而转诊医生和放射科医生对患者获取放射学报告的看法则各不相同。研究发现，患者获取报告的主要优点是增强了理解和能力，提高了患者与医生之间的参与度和沟通。主要缺点是患者难以理解报告，以及患者对获取报告感到焦虑。转诊医生的意见和放射科医生的意见分别不足 20%（6 项研究）和 10%（3 项研究）：讨论：这些研究表明，随着时间的推移，患者希望获得放射科报告。未来的研究应征求转诊医生和放射科医生的意见，以便在更知情的情况下设计患者获取放射学报告的途径。

{"title":"Patient, Referring Physician, and Radiologist Opinions Over Time on Providing Patients Access to Radiology Reports: A Systematic Review","authors":"Mohammad Alarifi PhD, MS , M. Courtney Hughes PhD, MS , Abdulrahman M. Jabour PhD, MS , Yazeed Alashban PhD, MS , Erin Vernon PhD, MA","doi":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.08.006","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.08.006","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>Patients increasingly have access to their radiology reports. This systematic review examined the opinions of patients, referring physicians, and radiologists over time on providing patients full access to their radiology reports.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic review examining quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PROSPERO CRD42023466502). Our search was conducted through September 30, 2023, and spanned five databases (CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, ProQuest, PubMed, and Scopus). The studies included were peer-reviewed journal articles about the opinions of patients, referring physicians, or radiologists regarding giving patients unrestricted access to their radiology reports.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>After screening 4,520 articles, the full texts of 439 studies were assessed for eligibility. Thirty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies showed that, over time, patients have consistently expressed a strong desire to access radiology reports, and referring physicians and radiologists have varied opinions about patient access to radiology reports. The main advantages of patient access found in the studies were enhanced understanding and empowerment and increased patient-physician engagement and communication. The main disadvantages were difficulties in patients understanding reports and patient anxiety from accessing reports. Referring physicians’ opinions and radiologists’ opinions were found in less than 20% (six studies) and 10% (three studies), respectively.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>The studies show patients have desired access to radiology reports over time. Future research should elicit the opinions of referring physicians and radiologists to enable a more informed design of patient access to radiology reports.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Radiology","volume":"21 12","pages":"Pages 1862-1874"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142001513","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Maintain Readability Standards for Radiology Reports Translated by Artificial Intelligence 维护人工智能翻译放射学报告的可读性标准

IF 4 3区医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING

Journal of the American College of Radiology

Pub Date : 2024-12-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2024.07.027

Ronald Lockington MD, Alexander Beckstead MD, David Garcia MD

引用次数: 0

Patient-Friendly Summary of the ACR Appropriateness Criteria®: Cerebrovascular Disease–Child ACR 适宜性标准®患者友好摘要：脑血管疾病-儿童。

IF 4 3区医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING

Journal of the American College of Radiology

Pub Date : 2024-12-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2024.06.003

Anna Cernich , Sherry S. Wang MBBS

引用次数: 0

Advanced Practice Provider Procedures Commonly Performed in Interventional Radiology: Medicare Volume Trends From 2010 to 2021 介入放射学中常用的高级医疗服务提供者程序：2010-2021 年医疗保险用量趋势。

IF 4 3区医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING

Journal of the American College of Radiology

Pub Date : 2024-12-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2024.06.015

Will S. Lindquester MD , C. Matthew Hawkins MD, MBA , Eric L. Peterson PA-C , Rajoo Dhangana MD

引用次数: 0

The Impact of Large Language Model-Generated Radiology Report Summaries on Patient Comprehension: A Randomized Controlled Trial 大语言模型生成的放射学报告摘要对患者理解能力的影响：随机对照试验

IF 4 3区医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING

Journal of the American College of Radiology

Pub Date : 2024-12-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2024.06.018

Kayla Berigan MD, CIIP , Ryan Short MD , David Reisman MD , Laura McCray MD, MSCE , Joan Skelly MS , Kimberly Jones BS , Nicholas T. Befera MD , Naiim Ali MD

引用次数: 0

Imaging Pregnant or Potentially Pregnant Patients With Ionizing Radiation: Navigating a Changing Medicolegal Landscape 用电离辐射为怀孕或可能怀孕的患者成像：驾驭不断变化的医学法律环境。

IF 4 3区医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING

Journal of the American College of Radiology

Pub Date : 2024-12-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2024.06.023

Katherine Frederick-Dyer MD , Sarah Averill MD , Kirti Magudia MD, PhD , Sasha Kurumety MD , Elizabeth H. Dibble MD

引用次数: 0

Patient-Friendly Summary of the ACR Appropriateness Criteria®: Workup of Noncerebral Systemic Arterial Embolic Source 患者友好型摘要 ACR 适宜性标准®：非大脑系统动脉栓塞源的检查。

IF 4 3区医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING

Journal of the American College of Radiology

Pub Date : 2024-12-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2024.04.021

Anika G. Patel , Sonya Bhole MD

引用次数: 0

Diagnostic Accuracy of Cone-Beam CT for Acute Intracranial Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis 锥形束 CT 对急性颅内出血的诊断准确性：系统回顾与元分析》。

IF 4 3区医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING

Journal of the American College of Radiology

Pub Date : 2024-12-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2024.07.026

Nicholas G. Ferrone , Maria X. Sanmartin PhD , Joseph O’Hara , Jean Jimenez , Sophia R. Ferrone , Zachary Lodato DO , Gregory Lacher MD , Sanjana Bandi MD , Alicia Convey , Mehrad Bastani PhD , Un Jung Lee PhD , Jaclyn Morales Vialet , Timothy White MD , Jason J. Wang PhD , Jeffrey M. Katz MD , Pina C. Sanelli MD, MPH

Objective

Our purpose was to synthesize evidence in the literature to determine the diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam CT (CBCT) for the detection of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and hemorrhage types, including intraparenchymal hemorrhage (IPH), subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), and intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH).

Methods

We performed a meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Our protocol was registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO-CRD42021261915). Systematic searches were last performed on April 30, 2024, in EMBASE, PubMed, Web-of-Science, Scopus, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases. Inclusion criteria were (1) studies reporting diagnostic metrics of CBCT for ICH and (2) studies using a reference standard to determine ICH. Exclusion criteria were (1) case reports, abstracts, reviews and (2) studies without patient-level data. Pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for diagnostic odds ratios (DORs), sensitivity, and specificity using random-effects and common-effects models. Mixed methods appraisal tool was used to evaluate risk of bias.

Results

Seven studies were included in the meta-analysis yielding 466 patients. Mean or median age ranged from 54 to 75 years. Female patients represented 51.4% (222 of 432) in reported studies. Multidetector CT was the reference standard in all studies. DOR, pooled sensitivity, and pooled specificity for ICH were 5.28 (95% CI: 4.11-6.46), 0.88 (95% CI: 0.79-0.97), and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-1.0). Pooled sensitivity for IPH, SAH, and IVH was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.95-1.0), 0.82 (95% CI: 0.57-1.0), and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.55-1.0). Pooled specificity for IPH, SAH, and IVH was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-1.0), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97-1.0), and 1.0 (95% CI: 0.98-1.0).

Discussion

CBCT had moderate DOR and high pooled specificity for ICH and hemorrhage types. However, pooled sensitivity varied by hemorrhage type, with the highest sensitivity for IPH, followed by SAH and IVH.

目的：我们的目的是综合文献证据，确定锥形束 CT（CBCT）在检测颅内出血（ICH）和出血类型（包括实质内出血（IPH）、蛛网膜下腔出血（SAH）和脑室内出血（IVH））方面的诊断准确性：我们按照《系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目》（Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses，PRISMA）指南进行了荟萃分析。我们的方案已在国际系统综述前瞻性注册中心（PROSPERO-CRD42021261915）注册。我们于 2024 年 4 月 30 日在 EMBASE、PubMed、Web-of-Science、Scopus 和 CINAHL 数据库中进行了最后一次系统检索。纳入标准为(1) 报告 CBCT 对 ICH 诊断指标的研究；(2) 使用参考标准确定 ICH 的研究。排除标准为(1) 病例报告、摘要、综述；(2) 无患者层面数据的研究。使用随机效应和共同效应模型计算诊断率（DOR）、灵敏度和特异性的汇总估计值和 95% 置信区间（CI）。使用混合方法评估工具评估偏倚风险：荟萃分析纳入了七项研究，共有 466 名患者。平均/中位年龄为 54-75 岁。在报告的研究中，女性占 51.4%（222/432）。所有研究均以多载体 CT 为参考标准。ICH的DOR、集合敏感性和集合特异性分别为5.28（95%CI:4.11-6.46）、0.88（95%CI:0.79-0.97）和0.99（95%CI:0.98-1.0）。IPH、SAH和IVH的集合敏感性分别为0.98（95%CI:0.95-1.0）、0.82（95%CI:0.57-1.0）和0.78（95%CI:0.55-1.0）。IPH、SAH和IVH的集合特异性分别为0.99（95%CI:0.98-1.0）、0.99（95%CI:0.97-1.0）和1.0（95%CI:0.98-1.0）：讨论：CBCT 对 ICH 和出血类型具有中等程度的 DOR 和较高的集合特异性。然而，不同出血类型的集合敏感性各不相同，IPH的敏感性最高，其次是SAH和IVH。

{"title":"Diagnostic Accuracy of Cone-Beam CT for Acute Intracranial Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"Nicholas G. Ferrone , Maria X. Sanmartin PhD , Joseph O’Hara , Jean Jimenez , Sophia R. Ferrone , Zachary Lodato DO , Gregory Lacher MD , Sanjana Bandi MD , Alicia Convey , Mehrad Bastani PhD , Un Jung Lee PhD , Jaclyn Morales Vialet , Timothy White MD , Jason J. Wang PhD , Jeffrey M. Katz MD , Pina C. Sanelli MD, MPH","doi":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.07.026","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.07.026","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>Our purpose was to synthesize evidence in the literature to determine the diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam CT (CBCT) for the detection of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and hemorrhage types, including intraparenchymal hemorrhage (IPH), subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), and intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We performed a meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Our protocol was registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO-CRD42021261915). Systematic searches were last performed on April 30, 2024, in EMBASE, PubMed, Web-of-Science, Scopus, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases. Inclusion criteria were (1) studies reporting diagnostic metrics of CBCT for ICH and (2) studies using a reference standard to determine ICH. Exclusion criteria were (1) case reports, abstracts, reviews and (2) studies without patient-level data. Pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for diagnostic odds ratios (DORs), sensitivity, and specificity using random-effects and common-effects models. Mixed methods appraisal tool was used to evaluate risk of bias.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Seven studies were included in the meta-analysis yielding 466 patients. Mean or median age ranged from 54 to 75 years. Female patients represented 51.4% (222 of 432) in reported studies. Multidetector CT was the reference standard in all studies. DOR, pooled sensitivity, and pooled specificity for ICH were 5.28 (95% CI: 4.11-6.46), 0.88 (95% CI: 0.79-0.97), and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-1.0). Pooled sensitivity for IPH, SAH, and IVH was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.95-1.0), 0.82 (95% CI: 0.57-1.0), and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.55-1.0). Pooled specificity for IPH, SAH, and IVH was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-1.0), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97-1.0), and 1.0 (95% CI: 0.98-1.0).</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>CBCT had moderate DOR and high pooled specificity for ICH and hemorrhage types. However, pooled sensitivity varied by hemorrhage type, with the highest sensitivity for IPH, followed by SAH and IVH.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Radiology","volume":"21 12","pages":"Pages 1841-1850"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141989666","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

下一页尾页

类型

全部化学•材料生命科学医学物理工程技术环境•农林材料科学地球科学法学管理学化学环境科学与生态学计算机科学教育学经济学农林科学人文科学生物学数学物理与天体物理心理学综合性期刊其他工业工程理学历史学农学文学信息工程

数据库

全部 ACS Publications Elsevier ieeexplore Springer The Royal Society of Chemistry Wiley

期刊

Journal of the American College of Radiology

全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.

﹀