ArticleScientific reports2025
CT-based scoring system for diagnosing eosinophilic solid and cystic renal cell carcinoma versus clear cell renal cell carcinoma.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Eosinophilic solid and cystic renal cell carcinoma (ESC-RCC) is rare and often misdiagnosed as clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). Therefore, a CT-based scoring system was developed to improve differential diagnosis. Retrospectively, 25 ESC-RCC and 176 ccRCC cases, were collected. The two groups were matched on a 1:2 basis using the propensity-score-matching (PSM) method, with matching factors including sex and age. Finally, 25 ESC-RCC and 50 ccRCC cases were included and randomly divided into a training cohort (52 cases) and a validation cohort (23 cases). Logistic regression identified significant factors, constructed the primary model, and assigned weights for the scoring model. Diagnostic performance was compared using receiver operating characteristic curves, dividing points into three intervals. Multifactorial logistic regression identified three independent factors: intra-tumour necrosis (3 points), degree of corticomedullary phase (CMP) enhancement (3 points), and pseudocapsule (2 points). The primary model's area under the curve (AUC) value was 0.954 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.857-0.993, P < 0.001), with 85.7% sensitivity and 94.1% specificity. The scoring model's AUC value for the training cohort was 0.950 (95% CI: 0.852-0.991, P < 0.001), with 77.1% sensitivity and 100% specificity at a cut-off of 4 points. The validation cohort's AUC was 0.942 (95% CI: 0.759-0.997, P < 0.001). The scoring system intervals were: ≥0 to < 2 points, ≥ 2 to ≤ 3 points, and > 3 to ≤ 8 points. Higher scores correlated with increased ccRCC incidence and decreased ESC-RCC incidence.The limitation of this study is the small sample size. A CT-based scoring system effectively differentiates ESC-RCC from ccRCC.
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.