ArticlePathologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2026
[Pathodashboard: an epidemiological atlas for tumour diagnostics. German version].
Article in Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe availability of comparable epidemiological data on malignant tumours remains limited due to heterogeneous classification systems, divergent reference frameworks, and inconsistent case definitions. Incomplete data collection and an often biased focus on specific subtypes also impair the representativeness of the results. These methodological discrepancies make it difficult to perform a reliable cross-source analysis of tumour frequencies. This study aims to evaluate extensive cancer registry data to enable epidemiological comparisons across locations and to support differential diagnostic decisions by including age, gender, and line differentiation. METHODOLOGY: Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program (2000-2019, n = 12,809,525) and the German Centre for Cancer Registry Data (ZfKD; 2000-2019, n = 9,754,219) were merged. Tumours were classified according to ICD O 3.2. Incomplete and nonspecific datasets were removed and the remaining data visualised. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The processed datasets were made available both online and as offline downloads, enabling an aggregated overview based on grouped ICD-O‑3.2 codes as well as a differentiated analysis of morphological phenotypes across 73 anatomical sites. The resulting visualisations provide a uniform epidemiological basis for comparative tumour analyses across a broad spectrum of locations and entities.
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.