ArticleTranslational oncology2017
Proving of a Mathematical Model of Cell Calculation Based on Apparent Diffusion Coefficient.
Article in Translational oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surrogating tumour cell density in head and neck cancer: [Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Novel MRI-Based CAD System for Early Detection of Thyroid Cancer Using Multi-Input CNN.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Is a Novel Imaging Biomarker of Myopathic Changes in Liver Cirrhosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2018Article
- Comparison of Two Mathematical Models of Cellularity Calculation.Translational oncology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesRecently, Atuegwu et al. proposed a mathematical model based on ADC
methodsFor this study, we re-analyzed our previous data regarding associations between ADC parameters and histopathological findings. Overall, 134 patients with different tumors were acquired for the analysis. For all tumors, the number of tumor cells was calculated according to Atuegwu et al. 2013. We performed a correlation analysis between the calculated and estimated cellularity. Thereby, Pearson's correlation coefficient was used and P < .05 was taken to indicate statistical significance in all instances.
resultsThe estimated and calculated cellularity correlated well together in HNSCC (r=0.701, P=.016) and lymphomas (r=0.661, P=.001), and moderately in rectal cancer (r=0.510, P=.036). There were no statistically significant correlations between the estimated and calculated cellularity in uterine cervical cancer, meningiomas, and in thyroid cancer.
conclusionThe proposed formula for cellularity calculation does not apply for all tumors. It may be used for HNSCC, cerebral lymphomas and rectal cancer, but not for uterine cervical cancer, meningioma, and thyroid cancer. Furthermore, its usefulness should be proved for other tumors.
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.