Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42130640›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026

Diagnostic value of [

Jingru Liu, Yizhen Pang, Tianxin Liu, Shengnan Xu, Jinli Pei, Shijie Wang, Yanluan Guo, Jingjing Wang, Jinming Yu, Wanhu Li and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Jingru Liu *Department of Oncology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Yizhen Pang *Center for Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China.
Tianxin LiuCenter for Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China.
Shengnan XuCenter for Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China.
Jinli PeiCenter for Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China.
Shijie WangCenter for Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China.
Yanluan GuoCenter for Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China.
Jingjing WangDepartment of Pathology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China.
Jinming YuDepartment of Oncology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Wanhu LiCenter for Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China.
Jie LiuCenter for Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Conventional imaging has limitations in differentiating benign from malignant breast lesions and in staging breast cancer (BC). This study compared the diagnostic and staging performance of [ Methods: This single-center Results: Sixty-nine women (median age, 50 years) with 81 breast lesions, 797 regional lymph nodes, and 94 distant metastases were included, and all 69 patients underwent ultrasonography, mammography, breast MRI, whole-body CT, and bone scan. For primary breast lesions, conventional imaging showed sensitivity and specificity of 93.75% and 100.00%, whereas visual PET/CT showed 98.44% and 70.59%. Although LBR Conclusions: [

Indexed as

[18F]AlF-NOTA-FAPI-04breast cancerconventional imagingdiagnostic accuracypositron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT)

Identifiers

PMID42130640
PMCPMC13160883

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.