ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
A scoring model for preoperative differentiation of high-enhancement pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from mass-forming chronic pancreatitis.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 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
Abstract
backgroundThe present study aimed to establish a scoring model for the differential diagnosis of high-enhancement pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (hPDAC) versus mass-forming chronic pancreatitis (MFCP).
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 81 patients: 40 with MFCP and 41 with hPDAC. Demographic and imaging characteristics were collected. Univariate, ridge regression and binary logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent predictors and develop diagnostic models. The clinicoradiological model was subsequently converted into a weighted scoring model. Calibration tests, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, area under the ROC curve (AUC), and cut-off points were assessed for both the clinicoradiological and scoring models.
resultsFour independent predictors were included in the clinicoradiological model: lesion size (p = 0.012), carbohydrate antigen 19 - 9 (CA19-9) elevate (p = 0.003), irregular lesion shape (p = 0.024), and pancreatic duct cut-off (p = 0.003). Weighted scores were assigned as follows: CA19-9 elevate, 6 points; smaller lesion size, 2 points; irregular lesion shape, 2 points; and pancreatic duct cut-off, 7 points. The clinicoradiological model and the scoring model exhibited AUC values of 0.986 and 0.940, respectively, revealed no significantly difference observed between the two (p = 0.073, DeLong test). The scoring model was stratified into two ranges: 0-8 points indicating MFCP and 9-17 points indicating hPDAC.
conclusionsA concise and practical scoring model for differentiating hPDAC from MFCP was developed, demonstrating strong diagnostic performance. A score of 8 points serves as the key demarcation line in this model.
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.