ArticleJournal of ovarian research2026
Abnormal adnexal uptake in
Article in Journal of ovarian research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe adnexal region in females presents complex imaging due to the menstrual cycle. Accurate diagnosis is crucial for effective tumor treatment. This study aims to assess the clinical utility of abnormal adnexal uptake on
methodsThis study retrospectively analyzed all female patients with abnormal adnexal uptake on
resultsThe study included 121 female patients with a mean age of 53.8 ± 12.2 years (18-80 years). A total of 184 adnexal lesions with abnormal uptake were identified. Pathology/follow-up confirmed 82.6% as malignancies, comprising 84 primary and 16 metastatic cases. Additionally, 2 borderline tumors and 19 benign lesions were detected. The positive predictive value was 83.5%. SUVmax differed significantly among primary malignant, metastatic, and benign lesions (12.52 ± 5.41 vs. 9.78 ± 3.39 vs. 5.52 ± 4.17). In the subset of patients with available pathological specimens, SUVmax showed weak to moderate positive correlations with Ki-67 (r = 0.361, p < 0.001) and p53 (r = 0.419, p < 0.001). Notably, the mean SUVmax in the Ki67 > 20% group was significantly higher than in the Ki67 ≤ 20% group (p < 0.001). ROC analysis showed an AUC of 0.85 of SUVmax alone for diagnosing malignant adnexal lesions, increasing to 0.89 when combined with tumor markers. DISCUSSION:
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.