ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictive value of primary tumorCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026Article
- Development of a predictive model for lymph node metastasis in esophageal cancer usingJournal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a risk prediction model for lymph node metastasis in stage IA2-IIA1 cervical cancer based on laboratory parameters.American journal of cancer research · 2025Article
- Prediction of lymph node metastasis in cervical cancer patients using AdaBoost machine learning model: analysis of risk factors.American journal of cancer research · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To explore the value of Materials and Methods: A total of 65 patients with stage I-II cervical cancer underwent Results: There were 14 and 51 patients were classified as having LNM and NLNM. The semi-quantitative parameters, including the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), the mean standardized uptake value (SUVmean), the peak standardized uptake value (SUVpeak), the total lesion glycolysis (TLG), the metabolic tumor volume (MTV) of the tumor and SCC-Ag were all significantly higher in LNM than in NLNM (SUVmax, 16.07 ± 7.81 vs 11.19 ± 4.73, SUVmean, 9.16 ± 3.48 vs 6.29 ± 2.52, SUVpeak, 12.70 ± 5.26 vs 7.65 ± 3.26, MTV, 22.77 ± 12.36 vs 7.09 ± 5.21, TLG, 211.01 ± 154.25 vs 43.38 ± 36.17, SCC-Ag, 5.39 ± 4.56 vs 2.13 ± 2.50, all Conclusion:
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.