ArticleInsights into imaging2024
[
Article in Insights into imaging, 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.
- Automatic metabolic breast cancer staging using [¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT: comparison with nuclear medicine physician-based and clinical staging.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- The proportion, clinical predictors, and prognostic impact of hypometabolic estrogen receptor-positive primary breast cancer on baseline [ 18 F] fluorodeoxyglucose PET.Nuclear medicine communications · 2026Article
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
purposeTo investigate in a feasibility study the combination of [
methodsConsecutive patients with breast cancer diagnoses according to conventional imaging modalities (full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and ultrasound (US)) were prospectively included. All patients underwent [
resultsFrom April 2021-April 2022, 28 patients were included. On conventional imaging, cT1-2 breast cancer was present in 22 (FFDM) and 23 (US) out of 28 patients. With regard to clinical nodal status, eight patients were considered cN0, eighteen cN1 (1-3 suspicious lymph nodes), and two patients were cN2 (four suspicious axillary lymph nodes/internal mammary lymph node metastasis). [
conclusion[ KEY POINTS: [
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.