ArticleOncology letters2016
Value of window technique in diagnosis of the ground glass opacities in patients with non-small cell pulmonary cancer.
Article in Oncology letters, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- ESR Essentials: a step-by-step guide of segmentation for radiologists-practice recommendations by the European Society of Medical Imaging Informatics.European radiology · 2025Review
- Unified total body CT image with multiple organ specific windowings: validating improved diagnostic accuracy and speed in trauma cases.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Automated 3D Quantitative Analysis of Intrapulmonary Vessel Volume on Noncontrast CT in Healthy Individuals.Current medical imaging · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to examine the value of window technique in qualitative diagnosis of the ground glass opacities (GGO) in patients with non-small cell pulmonary cancer. A total of 124 clinically suspected pulmonary cancer patients were analyzed retrospectively. The lesions were affirmed by puncture biopsy, and were GGO on pulmonary window while were invisible on mediastinal window. Sixty-four multi-detector spiral computed tomography with the window width and window level of 1,500 Hounsfield units (HU) and -450 HU on pulmonary window, while the window width and window level of 400 and 40 HU on mediastinal window, was used in the study. The window adjustment technique was used to analyze the window width and window level of lesion on pulmonary window and mediastinal window, for searching invisible threshold on 3-megapixel medical displays. The diagnostic accuracy and the cut-off value were compared on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The results showed that the window width and window level on pulmonary window and mediastinal window of malignant lesions were significantly less than those of benign ones (P<0.05). The cut-off value on pulmonary window was the window width and window level of 1,300 and -220 HU, the area under the ROC was 0.830 [sensitivity was 72.5%, specificity was 84.3%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.712-0.945]. The cut-off value on mediastinal window was the window width and window level of 360 and 30 HU, and the area under the ROC was 0.623 (was 62.0%, specificity was 55.7%; 95% CI, 0.541-0.745). In conclusion, the window technique has high sensitivity and accuracy in qualitative diagnosis of the GGO.
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.