ArticleJournal of mid-life health
Comparison of Human Epididymis Protein 4, Cancer Antigen 125, and Ultrasound Prediction Model in Differentiating Benign from Malignant Adnexal Masses.
Article in Journal of mid-life health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Utility of a Multimodal Biomarker Panel and Serum Proapoptotic Activity to Refine Diagnosis of Ovarian Adnexal Masses.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of carcinogenic antigen (CA) 125, (HE)-4 (Human epididymis protein 4), and ultrasound (International Ovarian Tumor Analysis [IOTA]) Simple Rules individually and to derive a composite score in the differentiating ovarian cancer from benign ovarian mass. Subjects and Methods: Consecutive patients ( Results: Out of 100 cases of adnexal mass selected, the sensitivity and specificity of CA-125 were 73.8% and 77.6%, HE-4 were 90.5% and 87.9%, and IOTA Simple Rules were 92.9% and 81.0%. CA-125, HE-4, and IOTA Simple Rules were independently associated with the likelihood of malignancy/borderline ( Conclusion: The sensitivity and specificity of HE-4 and IOTA Simple Rules for predicting malignant ovarian tumor was better than those of CA-125. The diagnostic performance of "composite score" was comparable to those of either HE-4 or IOTA Simple Rules and significantly better than CA-125.
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.