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

<p>ADC values in bold are significantly different (p<0.05) from the other two values in the same distribution. ADC values with an asterisk are significantly different from each other. There are no significant differences (p≥0.05) between mean ADC values between two values that are not bolded or have an asterisk. The deeper regions, which are susceptible to B₁ inhomogeneity artifacts, are listed in rows 1–3.</p

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

<p>Imaging parameters in the three imaging systems used for the patient population.</p

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

<p>Imaging parameters in the three imaging systems used for the volunteer population.</p

Representative source data from all three MR-scanners.

<p>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.</p

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

<p>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)).</p

Representative ADC-images.

<p>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).</p

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

<p>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)).</p

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

<p>Values of r>0.7 are bolded to illustrate strong correlation, while values that have low correlation (<0.5) are italicized. The deeper regions, which are susceptible to B₁ inhomogeneity artifacts, are shaded in gray.</p

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

<p>ADC values in bold are significantly different (p<0.05) from the other two values in the same distribution. There are no significant differences (p≥0.05) between mean ADC values between two values that are not bolded. The deeper regions, which are more susceptible to B₁ inhomogeneity artifacts, are listed in rows 1–3.</p

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

<p>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)).</p