ArticleFrontiers in neurology2022
Development of Two Diagnostic Prediction Models for Leptomeningeal Metastasis in Patients With Solid Tumors.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical and CSF Measurements for Identification of Leptomeningeal Metastasis in Lung Adenocarcinoma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Leptomeningeal metastatic disease: new frontiers and future directions.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2025Review
- Development and validation of a nomogram to predict leptomeningeal metastases in lung adenocarcinoma: Cervical lymph node metastasis is an important association factor.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- A non-enhancing, T2 fluid-attenuated inversion recovery hyperintense, diffusion-restricting brainstem lesion in an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor-treated non-small-cell lung cancer patient.Biomarkers in medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: For accurate diagnosis of leptomeningeal metastasis (LM) and to avoid unnecessary examinations or lumber puncture (LP), we develop two diagnostic prediction models for patients with solid tumors. Study Design Setting and Participants: This is a retrospective cohort study launched at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University. In total, 206 patients who had been admitted between January 2005 and December 2021 with a solid tumor and clinical suspicion of LM were enrolled to develop model A. In total, 152 patients of them who underwent LPs for cytology and biochemistry were enrolled to develop model B. Model Development: Diagnostic factors included skull metastasis, active brain metastasis, progressed extracranial disease, number of extracranial organs involved, number of symptoms, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) protein, and CSF glucose. The outcome predictor was defined as the clinical diagnosis of LM. Logistic least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression was used to identify relevant variables and fit the prediction model. A calibration curve and the concordance index (c-index) were used to evaluate calibration and discrimination ability. The Results: The area under the curve (AUC) values of models A and B were 0.812 (95% CI: 0.751-0.874) and 0.901 (95% CI: 0.852-0.949). Respectively, compared to the first magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and first LP, models A and B showed a higher AUC (model A vs. first MRI: 0.812 vs. 0.743, Conclusions: The models can help improve diagnostic accuracy when used alone or in combination with conventional work-up. They also exhibit a net clinical benefit in medical decisions and in avoiding unnecessary interventions for patients with LM. Studies focused on external validation of our models are necessary in the future.
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.