ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2024
Development of a CT-assessed adiposity nomogram for predicting outcome in localized ccRCC.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to develop and validate a computed tomography-based nomogram assessing visceral and subcutaneous adiposity for predicting outcomes in localized clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC).
methodsA cohort of 364 patients with pathologically confirmed ccRCC participated in this retrospective study, with 254 patients assigned to the training set and 110 to the validation set (a 7:3 distribution ratio). The adipose score (AS) was generated using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator Cox regression. Subsequently, a nomogram was constructed by integrating the clinical independent predictor with the AS to predict disease-free survival (DFS) in localized ccRCC after surgery. The performance of the nomogram was compared with the University of California, Los Angeles, Integrated Staging System (UISS), and the Stage, Size, Grade, and Necrosis (SSIGN) score.
resultsIn both the training and validation cohorts, the nomogram exhibited superior discrimination compared to SSIGN and UISS (C-index: 0.897 vs. 0.781 vs. 0.776 in the training cohort, and 0.752 vs. 0.596 vs. 0.686 in the validation cohort; 5 year AUC: 0.907 vs. 0.805 vs. 0.820 in the training cohort, and 0.832 vs. 0.577 vs. 0.726 in the validation cohort). Decision curve analysis (DCA) revealed a superior net benefit across a wider range of threshold probabilities for predicting 5 year DFS compared to UISS and SSIGN scores.
conclusionsThe developed prognostic nomogram demonstrated high accuracy and overall superior performance compared to existing prognostic models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38842727What 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.