ArticleKorean journal of radiology2022
Development and Validation of
Article in Korean journal of radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Key Measures for Evaluating Diagnostic Accuracy in Multi-Class Classification: An Overview and Simulation-Based Comparison.Korean journal of radiology · 2026Review
- Histiocyte Society blueprint for hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis research: deciphering underlying disease mechanisms to optimize diagnosis and therapy.Haematologica · 2025Review
- Logistic regression versus C5.0 decision tree in predicting female stress urinary incontinence risk using clinical and pelvic floor ultrasound data: a model development and validation study.BMC women's health · 2025Article
- Development and validation ofQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Positron Emission Tomography Imaging and HScore-Based Diagnosis in Two Children with Malignancy-Associated Hemophagocytic Syndrome: Anaplastic Large-Cell Lymphoma and Precursor B-acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia.Turkish archives of pediatrics · 2025Article
- Case Report: Primary pulmonary lymphoma with CT negative and PET high metabolism combined with hemophagocytic syndrome.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Enhancing diagnostic precision in EBV-related HLH: a multifaceted approach usingCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024Article
- BATF promotes tumor progression and association with FDG PET-derived parameters in colorectal cancer.Journal of translational medicine · 2024Article
- New Oncologic Imaging Section in theKorean journal of radiology · 2024Article
- Clinical features and prognostic risk prediction of adult hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis: a 9-year retrospective study.Annals of hematology · 2023Article
- Secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis in children (Review).Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2023Review
- How to Clearly and Accurately Report Odds Ratio and Hazard Ratio in Diagnostic Research Studies?Korean journal of radiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMATERIALS AND
methodsNinety-seven patients (age ≥ 14 years) with secondary HLH were retrospectively reviewed and divided into the derivation (n = 71) and validation (n = 26) cohorts according to admission time. In the derivation cohort, 22 patients had malignancy-associated HLH (M-HLH) and 49 patients had non-malignancy-associated HLH (NM-HLH). Data on pretreatment
resultsThe ratio of the maximal standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of the lymph nodes to that of the mediastinum, the ratio of the SUVmax of bone lesions or bone marrow to that of the mediastinum, and age were selected for constructing the model. The nomogram showed good performance in predicting M-HLH in the validation cohort, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.875 (95% confidence interval, 0.686-0.971). At an appropriate cutoff value, the sensitivity and specificity for identifying M-HLH were 90% (9/10) and 68.8% (11/16), respectively. The decision tree integrating the same variables showed 70% (7/10) sensitivity and 93.8% (15/16) specificity for identifying M-HLH. In comparison, visual analysis of
conclusion
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.