ArticleHeliyon2024
Optimizing the prognostic capacity of baseline
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Usefulness of 2-[18F]FDG PET or PET/CT in Extranodal Natural Killer/T-Cell Lymphoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Robust and interpretable deep learning system for prognostic stratification of extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Article
- Metabolic parameter of baseline 18 F-FDG PET/CT with PINK models improve the prediction of treatment outcome in extranodal NK/T-cell lymphoma treated with P-GEMOX chemotherapy.Annals of hematology · 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To investigate the prognostic capacity of baseline Materials and methods: Metabolic tumor volume (MTV)-based parameters were defined using RTs (41 % or 25 % of maximum standardized uptake value [SUVmax]), ATs (SUV 2.5, 3.0, 4.0, or mean liver uptake) in 133 patients. Metabolic parameters were classified into avidity-related parameters (SUVmax, mean SUV [SUVmean], standard deviation of SUV [SUVsd]), volume-related parameters (RT-MTV), and avidity- and volume-related parameters (total lesion glycolysis [TLG] and AT-MTV). The prognostic capacity of the metabolic parameters and the effects of different threshold types (RT vs. AT) were evaluated. Results: All metabolic parameters were moderately associated with prognosis. However, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of MTV and TLG was slightly higher than that of avidity-related parameters for predicting 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) (0.614-0.705 vs. 0.563-0.609) and overall survival (OS) (0.670-0.748 vs. 0.562-0.593). Correlations of MTV and avidity-related parameters differed between RTs (r < 0.06, Conclusion: The incorporation of volume and avidity significantly improved the prognostic capacity of PET in ENKTCL. Composite parameters that encompassed both avidity and volume were recommended.
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.