ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025
Lesion-vessel spatial relationship: a significant indicator for differentiation and evaluation of pulmonary ground-glass nodules.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The role of the lesion-vessel relationship in neoplastic and non-neoplastic ground-glass nodules (GGNs) remains unclear. Thus, this study aimed to investigate the spatial relationship between lesions and vessels of different diameters for differentiating and evaluating GGNs. Methods: Between January 2019 and September 2023, a total of 1,038 patients with 531 neoplastic GGNs and 531 non-neoplastic GGNs were retrospectively examined. The lesion-vessel spatial relationship was classified into three types: adherence (type I), where a nearby vessel is in contact with the margin of a GGN; surrounding (type II), where the GGN encircles the vessel; and combined (type III). The clinical data, computed tomography (CT) features, and lesion-vessel relationships concerning varying vessel diameters for different GGNs were summarized and compared. Results: Type I and II relationships were more prevalent in non-neoplastic and neoplastic GGNs, respectively (P<0.001). The independent predictors of neoplastic GGNs were type II relationship [odds ratio (OR) 5.011; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.753-9.124; P<0.001], surrounding vessels ≥1 but <2 mm (OR 2.497; 95% CI: 1.519-4.106; P<0.001), and surrounding vessels ≥2 mm (OR 8.375; 95% CI: 2.574-27.244; P<0.001); meanwhile, adherence to vessels ≥2 mm predicted non-neoplastic GGNs (OR 13.082; 95% CI: 3.826-44.737; P<0.001). The area under the curve of this model for predicting neoplastic GGNs was 0.878 (P<0.001). The proportions of neoplastic GGNs surrounding vessels ≥1 but <2 mm (49.6% to 72.6%) and ≥2 mm (5.8% to 36.0%) significantly increased with greater invasiveness (P<0.05). Conclusions: GGNs surrounding vessels ≥1 mm are more likely to be neoplastic, with those surrounding larger vessels indicating a greater likelihood of invasiveness, while lesions adhering to vessels ≥2 mm are more likely to be non-neoplastic.
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.