ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025
Correlation of solid proportion and lymph node metastasis in lung cancers ≤30 mm in diameter.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lymph node metastasis (LNM) of lung cancer is relatively common in clinical practice, and accurate diagnosis of LNM remains challenging. This study aimed to clarify the correlation between clinical computed tomography (CT) imaging features and LNM in lung cancers ≤30 mm according to different solid proportions (SPs). Methods: A total of 2,074 patients with lung cancer confirmed by surgical pathology and lymph node dissection were included. All lung cancers were categorized into three groups: ground-glass nodule (GGN), solid nodule (SN), and GGN + SN. Predictive models 1, 2, and 3 were constructed for the respective groups, and univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine the LNM risk in each group. Differences between models were compared with the Delong test. Results: In model 1 (GGN), SP was the sole independent risk factor, and the area under the curve (AUC) and accuracy of this model were 0.929 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.911-0.947] and 0.850, respectively. In model 2 (SN), high blood pressure, heterogeneous ventilation or perfusion, short diameter (SD), and CT mean density value (CTmean) were independent risk factors, with the AUC and accuracy of this model being 0.733 (95% CI: 0.678-0.788) and 0.735, respectively. In model 3, age, SP, spiculation, pleural tag, and rim sign were independent risk factors, with the AUC and accuracy of this model being 0.904 (95% CI: 0.888-0.920) and 0.751, respectively. The Delong test revealed significant differences between model 2 and both models 1 and 3 (P<0.05). Conclusions: Model 1 and model 3 demonstrated high diagnostic value for the preoperative prediction of LNM in patients with lung cancer.
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.