ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Localization and quantitative assessment of inflammation in frozen shoulder: a PET/MRI fusion imaging analysis.Skeletal radiology · 2026Article
- Clinical applications of PET imaging for evaluating treatment-induced vascular toxicity in oncology.Current opinion in hematology · 2026Review
- Study on heterogeneity of vascularity and cellularity via multiparametric MRI habitat imaging in breast cancer.BMC medical imaging · 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
Abstract
objectiveTo study the changes in positron emission tomography with 2-deoxy-2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-D-glucose integrated with computed tomography ( PATIENTS AND
methodsWe selected 161 patients with DLBCL who received 6 cycles of R-CHOP standard chemotherapy and underwent baseline and 6-cycle efficacy evaluations using
resultsComparison of the pre-treatment group of DLBCL with the control group showed that aortic TBR (1.28 ± 0.17 vs. 1.22 ± 0.18, P < 0.05) were higher in the former group. Additionally, comparing different stage groups of patients with DLBCL revealed that aortic TBR (1.30 ± 0.18 vs. 1.22 ± 0.15, P < 0.05) were higher in the Stage III/IV group compared to the Stage I/II group. Aortic TBR was positively correlated with TLG (P = 0.016, R = 0.19) and MTV (P = 0.032, R = 0.17). Analysis of changes in aortic
conclusionAortic wall
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.