ArticleScientific reports2025
A study on the value of ultrasound strain elastography-based radiomics nomogram in the differential diagnosis of breast masses.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to construct a radiomics nomogram for prediction of breast masses (BMs) by analyzing the clinical characteristics of the patients as well as radiomics features of two-dimensional (2D) ultrasound images and strain elastography images. In this retrospective study, 219 patients diagnosed with BMs were enrolled and randomly divided into training set and testing set in a 7:3 ratio. Radiomics nomogram was constructed based on clinical features and Radscore to compare area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with another models. The AUCs of the training set were 0.83, 0.91, 0.92, 0.96, and 0.99 for the clinical model, elastography radiomics model, 2D radiomics model, bimodal radiomics model, and nomogram, respectively, and the AUCs of the testing set were 0.86, 0.87, 0.91, 0.93, and 0.95, respectively. There were significant differences in AUC between nomogram and another models (p < 0.05). 2D ultrasound radiomics model and strain elastography radiomics model were of diagnostic value in identifying BMs. The bimodal radiomics model was superior to these two single-modal radiomics models. Nomogram can further enhance the diagnosis of BMs and contribute valuable information for clinical decision making.
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.