ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Application of
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Pulmonary solitary fibrous tumors (SFTs) represent a rare clinical entity, with malignant variants demonstrating particularly aggressive behavior and metastatic potential. The diagnostic challenge in early-stage disease underscores the need for improved detection methods. This study evaluates the diagnostic utility of Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of clinical characteristics and imaging findings in four histologically confirmed pulmonary SFT cases evaluated with Results: The cohort exhibited heterogeneous clinical presentations: three patients reported chest tightness with pain, one had non-painful chest tightness, and two presented with concomitant cough. Notably, no cases demonstrated hemoptysis, productive sputum, or fever. Contrast-enhanced CT initially suggested malignancy in three cases and benign pathology in one. PET/CT revealed two cases with intense FDG avidity (preoperatively classified as malignant-one with peritoneal metastases) and two with minimal uptake (classified as benign). Histopathological confirmation of all surgical specimens established PET/CT's 100% diagnostic accuracy for benign/malignant differentiation, compared to only 50% accuracy for contrast-enhanced CT. Conclusion:
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.