ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Development and validation of a nomogram for differentiating granulomatous lobular mastitis from ductal carcinoma in situ.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Background: Granulomatous lobular mastitis (GLM) frequently mimics ductal carcinoma Methods: We conducted a retrospective study at Quanzhou First Hospital from January 2020 to April 2025, including 290 patients with histopathologically confirmed GLM (n=128) or DCIS (n=162). Patients were randomly divided into training (n=203) and validation (n=87) sets. Clinical, laboratory, and ultrasound features were analyzed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression to identify independent predictors. A nomogram was constructed and evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, calibration plots, and decision curve analysis. Results: Six independent predictors were incorporated into the final nomogram: age, lesion size, margin characteristics, microcalcifications, posterior acoustic enhancement, and peri-lesional flow. The nomogram demonstrated excellent discriminative performance with areas under the ROC curve of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.92-0.98) in the training set and 0.93 (95% CI: 0.88-0.98) in the validation set. At optimal thresholds, the model achieved sensitivity of 92% and specificity of 89% in the training set, and 89% and 79% respectively in the validation set. Calibration plots confirmed high predictive accuracy, and decision curve analysis demonstrated substantial clinical benefit across clinically relevant threshold probabilities. Conclusions: This novel nomogram represents a diagnostic tool specifically designed for GLM versus DCIS differentiation. Its reliance on widely available clinical and ultrasound parameters makes it particularly valuable for resource-limited settings, potentially reducing unnecessary biopsies and associated patient morbidity.
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.