ArticleEJNMMI research2024
Distinguishing thymic cysts from low-risk thymomas via [
Article in EJNMMI research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-term follow-up results of the thymic cysts diagnosed by chest magnetic resonance imaging: single center retrospective study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Preoperative multiclass classification of thymic mass lesions based on radiomics and machine learning.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThymic cysts are a rare benign disease that needs to be distinguished from low-risk thymoma. [
methodsPatients who underwent preoperative [
resultsSeventy patients (18 thymic cysts and 52 low-risk thymomas) were finally included. Visual findings of PET visual grade (P < 0.001) and PET central metabolic defect (P < 0.001) showed significant differences between thymic cysts and low-risk thymomas, but CT shape did not. Among the quantitative parameters, PET SUVmax (P < 0.001), CT diameter (P < 0.001), and CT HU (P = 0.004) showed significant differences. In ROC analysis, PET SUVmax demonstrated the highest area under the curve (AUC) of 0.996 (P < 0.001), with a cut-off of equal to or less than 2.1 having a sensitivity of 100.0% and specificity of 94.2%. The AUC of PET SUVmax was significantly larger than that of CT diameter (P = 0.009) and CT HU (P = 0.004).
conclusionsAmong the [
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.