Journal of the American College of Radiology最新文献

{"title":"Trends of Attrition and Migration in Academic Radiology in US Medical Schools","authors":"Ajay Malhotra MD, MMM ,&nbsp;Dheeman Futela MBBS ,&nbsp;Shadi Ebrahimian MD ,&nbsp;Keervani Kandala BSc ,&nbsp;Diya Sarah Gandhi ,&nbsp;Seyedmehdi Payabvash MD ,&nbsp;Suyash Mohan MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jacr.2025.01.013","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jacr.2025.01.013","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Concerns have been expressed over attrition and migration contributing to workforce shortages in academic radiology.</div></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>We aimed to assess trends in attrition (leaving academic radiology) and migration in academic radiology in US medical schools and assess any variations based on gender and over time.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><div>Using the Association of American Medical Colleges Faculty Roster, full-time faculty in clinical educator track appointed between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2009 (primary cohort), were followed from January 1, 2010, to January 1, 2024. Retention, attrition, and migration rates for clinical faculty were compared by faculty rank and gender. Longitudinal trends in academic retention were plotted and analyzed using simple linear regression with years as the independent variable. More recent trends were assessed by comparing 7-year retention end points between the primary cohort and a secondary cohort appointed between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2016, and 4-year trends for cohort appointed between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 1,868 academic radiology faculty were included in the primary cohort (2010 cohort). After 14 years, 24.1% of instructors, 46.0% assistant professors, 59.6% associate professors, and 56.1% full professors retained their primary faculty appointment in the same medical school and department. The overall attrition rate for women (27.8%) was more than for men (23.5%, <em>P</em> = .04). Women had lower academic migration compared with men (21.8% versus 27.7% overall, <em>P</em> = .00737) at each rank. The yearly retention rates for assistant and associate professors did not fluctuate substantially during the study period for all three cohorts</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Retention rates in US academic radiology departments have not significantly changed over time, especially the attrition rates, which remain low. Migration rates have been historically low for women at the senior professor rank but have improved over time.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Radiology","volume":"22 5","pages":"Pages 600-605"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143076741","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}

{"title":"ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm or Dissection-Treatment Planning and Follow-Up: 2024 Update","authors":"Expert Panel on Vascular Imaging and Interventional Radiology,&nbsp;Beth Ripley MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Matthew J. Scheidt MD ,&nbsp;Ayaz Aghayev MD ,&nbsp;Charles Y. Kim MD ,&nbsp;Sandeep S. Hedgire MD ,&nbsp;Osmanuddin Ahmed MD ,&nbsp;Sarah Ahmad MD ,&nbsp;Rachel E. Clough MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Randall R. DeMartino MD, MS ,&nbsp;Maros Ferencik MD, PhD, MCR ,&nbsp;G. Chad Hughes MD ,&nbsp;Alan K. Klitzke MD ,&nbsp;Scott D. Steenburg MD ,&nbsp;Richard Thomas MD, MBBS ,&nbsp;Bryan J. Wells MD ,&nbsp;Stephen J. Wolf MD ,&nbsp;Jason W. Pinchot MD ,&nbsp;Bill S. Majdalany MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jacr.2025.02.019","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jacr.2025.02.019","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Diseases of the thoracic aorta include two broad categories: aneurysmal dilation involving all three layers of the intact aortic wall, and acute aortic syndromes, wherein at least one layer of the aortic wall is disrupted, such as in aortic dissection. These diseases carry a variable risk of subsequent aortic rupture, which is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Imaging is critical in the diagnosis, surveillance, and treatment of this constellation of diseases.</div><div>The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Radiology","volume":"22 5","pages":"Pages S455-S478"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144105841","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}

{"title":"ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Assessment of Cardiac Function and Baseline Cardiac Risk Stratification in Oncology Patients","authors":"Expert Panel on Cardiac Imaging,&nbsp;Nandini M. Meyersohn MD ,&nbsp;Anushri Parakh MD ,&nbsp;Brian B. Ghoshhajra MD, MBA ,&nbsp;Prachi P. Agarwal MD ,&nbsp;Jamieson M. Bourque MD, MHS ,&nbsp;Murthy R.K. Chamarthy MD ,&nbsp;Carlo N. De Cecco MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Matthew Ehrhardt MD, MS ,&nbsp;Cristina Fuss MD ,&nbsp;Kimberly Kallianos MD ,&nbsp;Juan C. Lopez-Mattei MD ,&nbsp;Sachin B. Malik MD ,&nbsp;Charlotte Manisty MBBS, PhD ,&nbsp;Christopher D. Maroules MD ,&nbsp;Alaka Ray MD ,&nbsp;Marielle Scherrer-Crosbie MD, PhD ,&nbsp;William Small Jr MD ,&nbsp;Tina D. Tailor MD ,&nbsp;Lynne M. Koweek MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jacr.2025.02.038","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jacr.2025.02.038","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Cardiac risk stratification is clinically useful prior to initiation of oncologic therapy in asymptomatic patients in order to guide treatment decisions and allow for initiation of cardioprotective therapy or modification of treatment regimens. Once oncology treatment is underway, patients may develop cardiac symptoms. In this setting, imaging can be used for assessment of ventricular and valvular function, myocardial characterization, pericardial effusion or constriction, as well as to evaluate for ischemia as a cause of symptoms. Results can help guide treatment choices and shared decision-making regarding modification or cessation of treatments with associated cardiotoxicity.</div><div>The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Radiology","volume":"22 5","pages":"Pages S67-S78"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144105852","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}

{"title":"ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening Based on Breast Density: 2024 Update","authors":"Expert Panel on Breast Imaging,&nbsp;Lisa V. Paulis MD ,&nbsp;Alana A. Lewin MD ,&nbsp;Susan P. Weinstein MD ,&nbsp;Paul Baron MD ,&nbsp;Sandra Dayaratna MD ,&nbsp;Katerina Dodelzon MD ,&nbsp;Basak E. Dogan MD ,&nbsp;Abhishek Gulati MD ,&nbsp;Olga Kantor MD ,&nbsp;Claudia Kasales MD, MHA ,&nbsp;Jean M. Kunjummen DO ,&nbsp;Cherie M. Kuzmiak DO ,&nbsp;Mary S. Newell MD ,&nbsp;Lonie R. Salkowski MD, PhD, MS ,&nbsp;Richard E. Sharpe Jr. MD, MBA ,&nbsp;William Small Jr. MD ,&nbsp;Gary A. Ulaner MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Priscilla J. Slanetz MD, MPH","doi":"10.1016/j.jacr.2025.02.023","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jacr.2025.02.023","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Screening mammography has been proven to reduce the mortality from breast cancer by approximately 30%, however, it is less sensitive in women with dense breast tissue and certain risk groups. Supplemental screening may be considered based on the patient’s risk level and breast density. In all women, digital breast tomosynthesis improves screening sensitivity. Average-risk women with heterogeneously dense tissue may also benefit from breast MRI, abbreviated breast MRI (AB-MRI) or breast ultrasound (US). In intermediate-risk women with nondense tissue, breast MRI and ABMRI may be appropriate. In intermediate-risk women with heterogeneously dense and extremely dense tissue, breast MRI and AB-MRI are usually appropriate, whereas US and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) may be appropriate. Breast MRI or ABMRI is usually appropriate in all high-risk women, regardless of density. Screening breast US or CEM could be considered in this population.</div><div>The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Radiology","volume":"22 5","pages":"Pages S405-S423"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144106156","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}

{"title":"ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Brain Tumors","authors":"Expert Panel on Neurological Imaging,&nbsp;Jana Ivanidze MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Robert Y. Shih MD ,&nbsp;Pallavi S. Utukuri MD ,&nbsp;Amna A. Ajam MD, MBBS ,&nbsp;Moises Auron MD ,&nbsp;Susan M. Chang MD ,&nbsp;Justin T. Jordan MD, MPH ,&nbsp;Aleks Kalnins MD, MBA ,&nbsp;Phillip H. Kuo MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Luke N. Ledbetter MD ,&nbsp;Jeffrey S. Pannell MD ,&nbsp;Jeffrey M. Pollock MD ,&nbsp;Jason Sheehan MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Bruno P. Soares MD ,&nbsp;Karl A. Soderlund MD ,&nbsp;Lily L. Wang MBBS, MPH ,&nbsp;Judah Burns MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jacr.2025.02.036","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jacr.2025.02.036","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Brain tumors represent a complex and clinically diverse disease group, whose management is particularly dependent on neuroimaging given the wide range of differential diagnostic considerations and clinical scenarios. The introduction of advanced brain imaging tools into clinical practice makes it paramount for all treating physicians to recognize the range and understand the appropriate application of various conventional and advanced imaging modalities. The imaging recommendations for neuro-oncologic clinical scenarios involving screening in patients with increased genetic risk, screening in patients with systemic malignancy, pretreatment evaluation in patients with intra- and extraaxial brain tumors, posttreatment-surveillance in patients with known brain tumors after completion of therapy, and subsequent workup in the context of suspected radiographic progression are encompassed by this document.</div><div>The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Radiology","volume":"22 5","pages":"Pages S108-S135"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144106333","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}

{"title":"Using A Surgical Risk Predictor to Estimate Percutaneous Cryoablation Adverse Event Risk: A Single Center Comparative Analysis","authors":"Prisha Patel BS,&nbsp;Koustav Pal MBBS,&nbsp;Hadi Ahmed BBA,&nbsp;Bill Tang BS,&nbsp;Iwan Paolucci PhD,&nbsp;Mohammad Khavandi MD,&nbsp;Peiman Habibollahi MD,&nbsp;Ketan Shah MD,&nbsp;Steven Y. Huang MD,&nbsp;Bruno C. Odisio MD, PhD,&nbsp;Sanjay Gupta MD,&nbsp;Kamran Ahrar MD,&nbsp;Steven Yevich MD,&nbsp;Joshua D. Kuban MD,&nbsp;Alda Tam MD,&nbsp;Rahul A. Sheth MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.12.006","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.12.006","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To evaluate the relevance of established surgical risk calculators for predicting complications in patients undergoing percutaneous lung cryoablation (PLC).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The institution’s database was queried for PLC procedures from March 2015 to May 2024, excluding those patients with concomitant local therapies or five or more lesions treated in a single setting. Demographics, frailty metrics as defined by the surgical literature, and procedural variables were collected. To evaluate the suitability of surgical risk estimate calculators, the requisite demographic data were input into the American College of Surgery surgical risk calculator; estimates for length of stay (LOS), serious complications, 30-day readmission, and mortality were calculated to determine the comparative risk profile were the patients to have undergone surgical wedge resection instead of PLC. Additionally, to evaluate the suitability of imaging predictors of complications, the volume of emphysematous lung was calculated using a machine learning algorithm and incorporated into a generalized estimating equation logistic regression analysis of other demographic and technical variables.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The study included 217 patients who underwent 314 procedures. Chest tubes were placed in 49% of procedures. The median LOS was 1 day (interquartile range: 1-1, range: 0-13). The median percentage of emphysema within the lungs was 5.9% (interquartile range: 2.4%-12.1%, range: 0.01%-50.3%). The median predicted surgical rates for serious complications (13.5%), 30-day readmission (12%), and 30-day mortality (5.9%) were all greater than actual rates after PLC (1.6%, 4.8%, and 0.3%, respectively). The estimated surgical LOS differed significantly from the actual PLC LOS (5 days versus 1 day, <em>P</em> &lt; .001). In univariable analysis, the number of probes the number of tumors ablated (odds ratio 1.90, 95% confidence interval 1.18-3.05, <em>P</em> = .008) and the number of probes used (odds ratio 1.44, 95% confidence interval 1.06-1.96, <em>P</em> = .021) were significantly associated with increased LOS, but demographic and emphysema details were not.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Complications after PLC are significantly less frequent than the estimated complication risks for wedge resection in the same patient population. Risk estimate calculators tailored to PLC would help screen for high complication risks related to this procedure.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Radiology","volume":"22 5","pages":"Pages 550-560"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142873608","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}

{"title":"Workforce Shortage and Strategies for Mitigation: Results from the 2022 ACR/Radiology Business Management Association Workforce Survey","authors":"Elizabeth H. Dibble MD ,&nbsp;Eric Rubin MD ,&nbsp;Jay R. Parikh MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jacr.2025.01.012","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jacr.2025.01.012","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Radiology","volume":"22 5","pages":"Pages 573-576"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143075697","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}

{"title":"The Growing Tension Between Interventional Radiology and Diagnostic Radiology","authors":"Cory M. Pfeifer MD, MBA, MPH, MS","doi":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.06.024","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.06.024","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Radiology","volume":"22 5","pages":"Page 520"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143892348","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}

{"title":"ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Imaging for Pulmonary Embolism, Known Clot","authors":"Expert Panel on Cardiac Imaging,&nbsp;Rahul D. Renapurkar MD, MBBS ,&nbsp;Prabhakar Shantha Rajiah MD ,&nbsp;Twyla B. Bartel DO, MBA ,&nbsp;Ahmed H. El-Sherief MD ,&nbsp;Christopher J. Francois MD ,&nbsp;Kate Hanneman MD, MPH ,&nbsp;Joe Y. Hsu MD ,&nbsp;Christopher D. Jackson MD ,&nbsp;Veronica Lenge de Rosen MD ,&nbsp;Lucy M. Safi DO ,&nbsp;Lilia M. Sierra-Galan MD ,&nbsp;Phillip M. Young MD ,&nbsp;Michael A. Bolen MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jacr.2025.02.028","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jacr.2025.02.028","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common medical problem associated with high cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Often, survivors of acute PE present with recurring symptoms and can have long-term functional sequela. Imaging plays a crucial role in initial evaluation of patients with suspected recurrent or residual PE with V/Q scan and CT angiography often used as the initial test of choice. In patients with known chronic thromboembolic disease, imaging is often used to map the disease burden, for surveillance and treatment planning; CT angiography is often used as the preliminary test for this purpose.</div><div>The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Radiology","volume":"22 5","pages":"Pages S261-S273"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144106242","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}

{"title":"It’s Time to Retire “You Guys” From Professional Conversations","authors":"Patrik Rogalla MD, PhD, MBA","doi":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.12.007","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.12.007","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Radiology","volume":"22 5","pages":"Pages 607-608"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142878841","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}