ArticlePloS one2025
A new stage for predicting the prognosis of granulomatous lobular mastitis.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Idiopathic granulomatous mastitis in the United Arab Emirates: a retrospective case series of clinical features, management, and outcomes.Clinical rheumatology · 2026Article
- Development and Internal Validation of a Clinical Data-Based Machine Learning Web Calculator for Predicting Recurrence in Granulomatous Lobular Mastitis: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.European journal of breast health · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe prognosis of granulomatous lobular mastitis (GLM) had been poor, primarily due to the lack of a unified disease assessment standard.
objectiveThe purpose of this cohort study was to establish a staging system for GLM to more accurately evaluate the prognosis of patients.
methodsThis study retrospectively collected data from 264 GLM patients who visited our hospital between January 2017 and December 2023. Through logistic regression analysis, factors associated with prognosis were identified, which served as the basis for creating a new staging system.
resultsUnivariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that hyperlipidemia (HR: 2.031; 95% CI: 1.100-3.750) and microabscesses (HR: 2.087; 95% CI = 1.138-3.827) were significant independent risk factors affecting the prognosis of GLM patients. Based on the results of logistic analysis, three different stages were ultimately established, and it was found that stage C had the highest AUC value (AUC: 0.642), followed by stage B (AUC: 0.628), with stage A (AUC: 0.614) having the lowest. The Delong test revealed no significant difference in AUC values between stage A and stage B (P = 0.255), nor between stage B and stage C (P = 0.263). However, the AUC value of the stage C was found to be higher than that of stage A (P < 0.001). Given that stage C has the highest AUC value, this study selected stage C as the final stage for evaluating the prognosis of GLM patients and named it the 1st edition of GLM stage.
conclusionsThis study constructed a rigorous and widely applicable GLM staging system (the 1st edition of GLM stage). The system demonstrated good predictive outcomes and provided strong support for clinical 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.