ArticlePloS one2024
Development of an intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm malignancy prediction scoring system.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Serum CA19.9 for Detecting High-Grade Dysplasia and Invasive Carcinoma in Patients With Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2026Pooled it
- Correlation of pathological types and imaging features in pancreatic cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
- Neoplastic premalignant pancreatobiliary lesions: current update on the spectrum of lesions and their imaging appearances.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the presence of various guidelines, diagnosing malignant intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) continues to pose challenges. Furthermore, although endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) offers high-resolution images, it has not yet recognized as the primary tool for malignancy diagnosis. The study objective was to develop a simplified and user-friendly scoring system to improve the diagnostic accuracy of malignant IPMNs. Additionally, the utility of EUS and its effect on diagnostic accuracy were assessed. We retrospectively collected the clinical data on 160 cases of resected IPMN at Tokyo Medical and Dental University Hospital from January 2008 to December 2022. We examined clinical features, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings, and EUS results if available. We then calculated the odds ratio of malignancy for these factors and developed an IPMN malignancy prediction (IMAP) scoring system. There were 89 (55.6%) cases of benign IPMNs and 71 (44.4%) of malignant IPMNs. Eight clinical and imaging findings, including age, diabetes mellitus status, jaundice, CA19-9 level, enhancing mural nodules ≥5mm, thickened wall, and main duct dilatation, were significantly associated with malignancy. The IMAP score was calculated by assigning 0 to 2 points to these factors based on the odds ratio. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the IMAP score was 0.78 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.71-0.85] based on CT/MRI alone and improved to 0.81 (95% CI: 0.74-0.87) when EUS was added. When the total exceeds 5 points, the positive predictive value becomes 100% (95% CI: 95.9-100). In conclusion, the IMAP scoring system has demonstrated promise as a clinically useful tool, offering both simplicity and sufficient accuracy. It holds potential as an important decision criterion for determining the treatment approach for IPMN. Additionally, EUS contributes to enhancing the diagnostic accuracy of the IMAP scoring system, thereby enabling more precise decision-making.
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.