Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32068231›Full record

ArticleBioscience reports2020

Evaluation of models for predicting the probability of malignancy in patients with pulmonary nodules.

You Li, Hui Hu, Ziwei Wu, Ge Yan, Tangwei Wu, Shuiyi Liu, Weiqun Chen, Zhongxin Lu

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Bioscience reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

You LiDepartment of Medical Laboratory, the Central Hospital of Wuhan, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430014, China.
Hui HuDepartment of Medical Laboratory, the Central Hospital of Wuhan, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430014, China.
Ziwei WuDepartment of Medical Laboratory, the Central Hospital of Wuhan, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430014, China.
Ge YanDepartment of Medical Laboratory, the Central Hospital of Wuhan, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430014, China.
Tangwei WuDepartment of Medical Laboratory, the Central Hospital of Wuhan, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430014, China.
Shuiyi LiuDepartment of Medical Laboratory, the Central Hospital of Wuhan, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430014, China.
Weiqun ChenSchool of Laboratory Medicine, Hubei University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Wuhan 430065, China.
Zhongxin LuDepartment of Medical Laboratory, the Central Hospital of Wuhan, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430014, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe post-imaging, mathematical predictive model was established by combining demographic and imaging characteristics with a pulmonary nodule risk score. The prediction model provides directions for the treatment of pulmonary nodules. Many studies have established predictive models for pulmonary nodules in different populations. However, the predictive factors contained in each model were significantly different. We hypothesized that applying different models to local research groups will make a difference in predicting the benign and malignant lung nodules, distinguishing between early and late lung cancers, and between adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. In the present study, we compared four widely used and well-known mathematical prediction models. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe performed a retrospective study of 496 patients from January 2017 to October 2019, they were diagnosed with nodules by pathological. We evaluate models' performance by viewing 425 malignant and 71 benign patients' computed tomography results. At the same time, we use the calibration curve and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve whose abbreviation is AUC to assess one model's predictive performance.

resultsWe find that in distinguishing the Benign and the Malignancy, Peking University People's Hospital model possessed excellent performance (AUC = 0.63), as well as differentiating between early and late lung cancers (AUC = 0.67) and identifying lung adenocarcinoma (AUC = 0.61). While in the identification of lung squamous cell carcinoma, the Veterans Affairs model performed the best (AUC = 0.69).

conclusionsGeographic disparities are an extremely important influence factors, and which clinical features contained in the mathematical prediction model are the key to affect the precision and accuracy.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesEarly Detection of CancerModels, StatisticalAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiopsyFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedMultiple Pulmonary NodulesPredictive Value of TestsRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentAUCevaluationlung cancerprediction modelpulmonary nodule

Identifiers

PMID32068231
PMCPMC7048676

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.