ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal oncology2019
Validation and head-to-head comparison of four models for predicting malignancy of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas: A study based on endoscopic ultrasound findings.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk factor and prediction model for malignant pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Risk Factor and Prediction Model for Malignant Transformation in Pancreatic Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm.Cancer medicine · 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
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral models are currently available for predicting the malignancy of pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN), namely, the Pancreatic Surgery Consortium (PSC), the Japan Pancreas Society (JPS), the Johns Hopkins Hospital (JHH), and the Japan-Korea (JPN-KOR) models. However, a head-to-head comparison that shows which model is more accurate for this individualized prediction is lacking.
aimTo perform a head-to-head comparison of the four models for predicting the malignancy of pancreatic IPMN.
methodsA total of 181 patients with IPMN who had undergone surgical resection were identified from a prospectively maintained database. The characteristics of IPMN in patients were recorded from endoscopic ultrasound imaging data and report archives. The performance of all four models was examined using Harrell's concordance index (C-index), calibration plots, decision curve analyses, and diagnostic tests.
resultsOf the 181 included patients, 94 were categorized as having benign disease, and the remaining 87 were categorized as having malignant disease. The C-indexes were 0.842 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.782-0.901], 0.704 (95%CI: 0.626-0.782), 0.754 (95%CI: 0.684-0.824), and 0.650 (95%CI: 0.483-0.817) for the PSC, JPS, JHH, and JPN-KOR models, respectively. Calibration plots showed that the PSC model had the least pronounced departure from ideal predictions. Of the remaining three models, the JPS and JHH models underestimated the probability of malignancy, while the JPN-KOR model overestimated the malignant potential of branch duct-IPMN. Decision curve analysis revealed that the PSC model resulted in a better clinical net benefit than the three other models. Diagnostic tests also showed a higher accuracy (0.801) for the PSC model.
conclusionThe PSC model exhibited the best performance characteristics. Therefore, the PSC model should be considered the best tool for the individualized prediction of malignancy in patients with pancreatic IPMN.
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.