ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2025
Development and validation of a nomogram model based on ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound features for differentiating mass-forming pancreatitis and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo explore the value of ultrasound (US) and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in differentiating mass-forming Pancreatitis (MFP) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed clinical and imaging data from 281 patients who underwent pancreatic CEUS between January 2018 and December 2023. Patients were randomly divided into training (n = 196) and validation (n = 85) sets. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify independent predictive imaging features for differentiating PDAC from MFP in the training set. Based on the identified predictors, two nomogram models were constructed: the US model and the US + CEUS model. The diagnostic performance of both models was assessed via the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration plots, Hosmer-Lemeshow test, and decision-curve analysis (DCA).
resultsMultivariate logistic regression analysis based on these factors identified taller-than-wide shape (P = 0.002, OR = 0.12), calcification (P = 0.003, OR = 13.76), and washout pattern (P = 0.002, OR = 0.13) as independent predictive factors for distinguishing PDAC from MFP. Compared to the US model, the US + CEUS model demonstrated better performance with AUC values 0.930 (95% CI: 0.895-0.965) in the training set and 0.914 (95% CI: 0.853-0.976) in the validation set. Calibration curve plots and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test (P > 0.05) confirmed that the model has good calibration, and DAC showed significant clinical benefit.
conclusionThe nomogram model constructed using taller-than-wide shape, calcification, and washout pattern demonstrated excellent discriminative ability, accuracy, and clinical utility in differentiating PDAC from MFP.
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.