ArticleCancer medicine2016
Evaluating IPMN and pancreatic carcinoma utilizing quantitative histopathology.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating IPMN and pancreatic carcinoma utilizing quantitative histopathology.Cancer medicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN) are pancreatic lesions with uncertain biologic behavior. This study sought objective, accurate prediction tools, through the use of quantitative histopathological signatures of nuclear images, for classifying lesions as chronic pancreatitis (CP), IPMN, or pancreatic carcinoma (PC). Forty-four pancreatic resection patients were retrospectively identified for this study (12 CP; 16 IPMN; 16 PC). Regularized multinomial regression quantitatively classified each specimen as CP, IPMN, or PC in an automated, blinded fashion. Classification certainty was determined by subtracting the smallest classification probability from the largest probability (of the three groups). The certainty function varied from 1.0 (perfectly classified) to 0.0 (random). From each lesion, 180 ± 22 nuclei were imaged. Overall classification accuracy was 89.6% with six unique nuclear features. No CP cases were misclassified, 1/16 IPMN cases were misclassified, and 4/16 PC cases were misclassified. Certainty function was 0.75 ± 0.16 for correctly classified lesions and 0.47 ± 0.10 for incorrectly classified lesions (P = 0.0005). Uncertainty was identified in four of the five misclassified lesions. Quantitative histopathology provides a robust, novel method to distinguish among CP, IPMN, and PC with a quantitative measure of uncertainty. This may be useful when there is uncertainty in diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.