ArticlePloS one2025
Development of a simplified prediction model for diagnosing progressive central precocious puberty using clinical and pelvic ultrasound parameters.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development and validation of diagnostic prediction models for central precocious puberty in girls based on machine learning: a multicenter retrospective study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to explore the predictive value of clinical and pelvic ultrasound parameters for diagnosing central precocious puberty (CPP) and to establish a clinically useful simplified prediction model to differentiate progressive CPP (P-CP) from nonprogressive precocious puberty (N-PP). Girls aged <9 years with secondary sexual development who underwent a gonadotropin-releasing hormone stimulation test and pelvic ultrasound between September 2020 and November 2023 were retrospectively included and divided into the P-CP and N-PP groups. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine the significant parameters and develop prediction models. The diagnostic performance of the models was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis and the Delong method. The continuous net reclassification improvement (cNRI) and absolute integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) were used to determine the additive effects of ultrasound parameters. A nomogram scoring system was constructed based on a simplified model to predict the probability of developing P-CP. A total of 109 girls were included, with 64 (58.7%) in the P-CP group. Age, bone age, height, height minus midparental height, basal luteinizing hormone (LH), follicle-stimulating hormone, estradiol, insulin-like growth factor-I, Tanner stage, and cervical and fundus width were significant parameters for the diagnosis of P-CP. The models with ultrasound parameters yielded significantly higher cNRI and IDI values than the models without ultrasound parameters. The simplified model was composed of basal LH, estradiol, and fundus width that showed an AUC value of 0.93 (95% confidence interval: 0.88-0.98) with a cutoff value of 16. In conclusion, adding pelvic ultrasound parameters to traditional clinical results has an additive effect on P-CP screening. A simplified predictive model is effective for CPP screening in real-world clinics. These findings highlight the potential of the prediction model to overcome the limitations of the classical diagnostic approach for CPP in children.
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.