ArticleCurrent medical imaging2026
A 3T Magnetic Resonance Fractional Order Calculus Model for the Diagnosis and Grading of Endometrial Cancer.
Article in Current medical imaging, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo investigate MRI fractional order calculus model (FROC) on distinguishing different pathological grades of endometrial carcinoma (EC).
methodsFifty patients with pathologically-confirmed EC and normal volunteers were enrolled for analysis of parameters β, μ, and D.
resultsThe parameters β, μ, and D of the EC group were all significantly (P<0.05) lower than the normal controls. Parameters β, μ, and D had high diagnostic efficacy in distinguishing EC, with the AUC of β, μ, and D being 0.777, 0.660, and 0.809, respectively. The β Energy and Total Energy were significantly (P<0.05) different between G1 and G3 pathological grades of EC. The β Energy, Kurtosis, and Total Energy were significantly (P<0.05) different between G2 and G3 pathological grades and had AUCs of 0.730, 0.795, and 0.812, respectively. The D Entropy, Total Energy, and Energy showed a significant (P<0.05) difference between G2 and G3 grades and had AUCs of 0.724, 0.761, and 0.756, respectively. The μ Energy, Entropy, and Total Energy showed a significant (P<0.05) difference between G2 and G3 grades. DISCUSSION: The use of parameters of the FROC model is effective for the diagnosis of endometrial carcinoma. Nonetheless, the limitations should be properly addressed, with validation of the model in a larger, multi-center cohort, incorporating second-order and high-order texture features.
conclusionThe use of parameters of the FROC model is effective for the diagnosis of EC, and the first-order statistical parameters have high clinical value in differentiating high- and low-grade EC.
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.