ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Diagnostic value of [
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study aimed to assess the diagnostic efficacy of the PRIMARY score, based on the Materials and Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, 137 patients with suspected prostate cancer (PCa) underwent [ Results: Among the 137 patients evaluated, 67.2% (92) were in csPCa and 32.8% (45) in the non-csPCa group (15 with low-grade PCa [GS 3 + 3] and 30 with benign prostatic hyperplasia or acute or chronic prostatitis). TPSA, SUVmax, PI-RADSv2.1, and the PRIMARY score significantly differed between the two groups (P<0.013). The AUCs for TPSA, SUVmax, PI-RADSv2.1, and PRIMARY score were 0.699, 0.898, 0.878, and 0.910, respectively, with corresponding diagnostic sensitivities of 53.3%, 87.0%, 90.2%, and 83.7%, and specificities of23.0%, 65. 1%, 42.6%, and 58.5%, respectively. The predictive ROC curve analysis of the model revealed an AUC of 0.968, with 91.3% sensitivity, and 84.6% specificity. MedCalc analysis showed that the AUC of the model was superior compared with that of SUVmax, PI-RADS v2.1 Score, and the PRIMARY score. The difference was statistically significant (Z= 2.273, 3.485, 2.761; P=0.023, 0.000, 0.005). Conclusions: The 5-grade PRIMARY score, derived from [
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.