ArticleMolecular imaging and biology2025
Article in Molecular imaging and biology, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo develop a novel risk model incorporating
methodsThe study retrospectively enrolled 192 PCa patients with preoperative multiparametric MRI,
resultsWith the median peritumoral nerve density of 6, patients were stratified as low-PNI group (nerve density < 6, n = 78, 40.6%) and high-PNI group (nerve density ≥ 6, n = 114, 59.4%). Compared with low-PNI PCa, high-PNI PCa harbored significantly larger imaging lesion diameter (P < 0.001), higher PI-RADS score (P = 0.009), higher SUVmax (P < 0.001), larger tumor diameter (P = 0.024) and higher Gleason grade group (P < 0.001). Further, with univariate and multivariate analyses, imaging lesion diameter (OR 2.98, 95% CI 1.73-5.16, P = 0.004) and SUVmax (OR 3.59, 95%CI 2.32-5.55, P < 0.001) and were identified as independent predictors for PNI in PCa, and a PNI-risk nomogram incorporating these two predictors was constructed. The PNI-risk nomogram demonstrated considerable calibration (mean absolute error 0.026) and discrimination (area under the curve = 0.889, sensitivity 73.1%, specificity 97.4%) abilities, harboring net benefits with threshold probabilities range from 0 to 0.80.
conclusion
Indexed as
Identifiers
39681774What 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.