ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2026
Evaluation of
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The clinical management of small (<20 mm), nonfunctional, nonmetastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (panNENs) relies heavily on accurate pathological grading, as Grade 1 (G1) tumors are often managed with active surveillance, whereas Grade 2 (G2) tumors warrant surgical resection. Currently, limited biopsy sampling may misrepresent the true tumor grade due to intratumoral heterogeneity, and conventional imaging lacks grading accuracy. Although Methods: A retrospective study was conducted between January 2019 and January 2025 on patients with histologically confirmed panNENs. All 34 patients (with 41 lesions) underwent Results: No significant differences in G-SUV or the G-SUV/F-SUV ratio were found between G1 and G2 (P=0.355 and P=0.861, respectively). In contrast, F-SUV was significantly lower in G1 than in G2 (P=0.003), with an optimal cutoff value of 2.5, yielding a sensitivity of 73% and a specificity of 89%. Although visual assessment of neither Conclusions:
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.