ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2017
Three-dimensional substructure measurements for the differential diagnosis of ground glass nodules.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe analyzed the differences between maximum and peak computed tomography (CT) numbers (M-P), respectively representing the densities of the solid center and the main periphery of ground-glass nodules (GGNs), and the average change in M-P velocity (V(M-P)) during follow-up to differentiate between pre-invasive (PIA) and invasive adenocarcinoma (IAC).
methodsData of 102 patients were retrospectively collected and analyzed in our study including 43 PIAs and 59 IACs. Diameters, total volumes, and the maximum and peak CT numbers in CT number histograms were measured and followed for at least 3 months. This study was registered retrospectively.
resultsThe M-P values for IACs were higher than those for PIAs (p = 0.001), with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.810 and a threshold of 489.5 Hounsfield units (HU) in ROC analysis. The V(M-P) values for IACs were smaller than those for PIAs (p = 0.04), with an AUC of 0.805 and a threshold of 11.01 HU/day.
conclusionsM-P and V(M-P) values may help distinguish IACs from PIAs by representing the changes in the sub-structural densities of GGNs during follow-up.
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.