Aim The purpose of this study is to describe the main chest radiological features (CXR) of COVID-19 and correlate them with clinical outcome. Materials and methods This is a retrospective study involving patients with clinical-epidemiological suspect of COVID-19 infection, who performed CXRs at the emergency department (ED) of our University Hospital from March 1 to March 31, 2020. All patients performed RT-PCR nasopharyngeal and throat swab, CXR at the ED and clinical-epidemiological data. RT-PCR results were considered the reference standard. The final outcome was expressed as discharged or hospitalized patients into a medicine department or intensive care unit (ICU). Results Patients that had a RT-PCR positive for COVID-19 infection were 234 in total: 153 males (65.4%) and 81 females (34.6%), with a mean age of 66.04 years (range 18-97 years). Thirteen CXRs were negative for radiological thoracic involvement (5.6%). The following alterations were more commonly observed: 135 patients with lung consolidations (57.7%), 147 (62.8%) with GGO, 55 (23.5%) with nodules and 156 (66.6%) with reticular-nodular opacities. Patients with consolidations and GGO coexistent in the same radiography were 35.5% of total. Peripheral (57.7%) and lower zone distribution (58.5%) were the most common predominance. Moreover, bilateral involvement (69.2%) was most frequent than unilateral one. Baseline CXR sensitivity in our experience is about 67.1%. The most affected patients were especially males in the age group 60-79 years old (45.95%, of which 71.57% males). RALE score was slightly higher in male than in female patients. ANOVA with Games-Howell post hoc showed significant differences of RALE scores for group 1 vs 3 (p < 0.001) and 2 vs 3 (p = 0.001). Inter-reader agreement in assigning RALE score was very good (ICC: 0.92-with 95% confidence interval 0.88-0.95). Conclusion In COVID-19, CXR shows patchy or diffuse reticular-nodular opacities and consolidation, with basal, peripheral and bilateral predominance. In our experience, baseline CXR had a sensitivity of 68.1%. The RALE score can be used in the emergency setting as a quantitative method of the extent of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, correlating with an increased risk of ICU admission.

A specific and widely accepted protocol for quality controls in DWI is still lacking. The DWI quality assurance protocol proposed in this study can be applied in order to assess the reliability of DWI-derived indices before tackling single- as well as multicenter studies.

Our findings suggest the existence of a continuum from normalcy to pathology in neural response to body image, and confirm the clinical relevance of body image distortion in AN, reinforcing the key role of attentive, executive and self-evaluation networks in AN visual processing of own distorted body image.

Purpose: To compare repeatability and reproducibility of four different methods of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) evaluation of liver parenchyma. In fact, repeatability and reproducibility assessment is mandatory in quantitative evaluations, however, these have not been accurately investigated in liver MR-diffusion-weighted studies.Materials and Methods: Diffusion-weighted sequences, b-value ¼ 0-1000 s/mm 2 , were acquired on 30 healthy volunteers by a 1.5T scanner whose reliability has been validated by a phantom study. Four sampling methods, evaluating various parenchyma percentages by differentsized region-of-interests (ROIs), were compared by two observers: 70% and 30% of the volume, 4%-one-ROI-persegment, and 4%-one-ROI-per-slice in the right-lobe. Ninety-five percent limits of agreement and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were calculated.Results: Complete measurements on the left lobe could be obtained in less than half of patients. The 4%-one-ROI-per-slice and 4%-one-ROI-per-segment yielded lower mean values compared with 30-70% volume methods (1343-1373 versus 1463-1560Á10 À6 mm 2 /s, respectively). Repeatability was acceptable (ICCs $ 0.80) whereas reproducibility was low (ICCs 0.45) for all methods. Averaging at least 3 measurements in middle-lower sections of the right lobe improved both repeatability (ICCs to !0.87) and reproducibility (ICCs to 0.82) for 30-70% V methods.Conclusion: ADC measurements were repeatable but not reproducible in our study. Reproducibility could be improved by taking averages on the right lobe with large ROI methods. Studies on procedures that standardize ADC measurements using more than two observers are needed.