ArticleEJNMMI research2023
Value of
Article in EJNMMI research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence in risk prediction and diagnosis of vertebral fractures.Scientific reports · 2024Pooled it
- Radiomics in spinal research: a narrative review.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Differential diagnosis of benign and malignant vertebral compression fractures based on CT radiomics model.Frontiers in oncology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVertebral compression fractures (VCFs) are common clinical problems that arise from various reasons. The differential diagnosis of benign and malignant VCFs is challenging. This study was designed to develop and validate a radiomics model to predict benign and malignant VCFs with
resultsTwenty-six features (9 PET features and 17 CT features) and eight clinical variables (age, SUVmax, SUVpeak, SULmax, SULpeak, osteolytic destruction, fracture line, and appendices/posterior vertebrae involvement) were ultimately selected. The area under the curve (AUCs) of the radiomics and clinical-radiomics models were significantly different from that of the clinical model in both the training group (0.986, 0.987 vs. 0.884, p < 0.05) and test group (0.962, 0.948 vs. 0.858, p < 0.05), while there was no significant difference between the radiomics model and clinical-radiomics model (p > 0.05). The accuracies of the radiomics and clinical-radiomics models were 94.0% and 95.0% in the training group and 93.2% and 93.2% in the test group, respectively. The three models all showed good calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test, p > 0.05). According to the decision curve analysis (DCA), the radiomics model and clinical-radiomics model exhibited higher overall net benefit than the clinical model.
conclusionsThe PET/CT-based radiomics and clinical-radiomics models showed good performance in distinguishing between malignant and benign VCFs. The radiomics method may be valuable for treatment decision-making.
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.