ArticleEndocrine2026
Validation of a thyroid malignancy risk calculator in a Portuguese cohort.
Article in Endocrine, 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
purposeThe Carral et al. calculator integrates clinical, laboratory and ultrasound variables to estimate thyroid malignancy risk. We independently evaluated its performance in a Portuguese surgical cohort.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study including patients who underwent total thyroidectomy between 2021 and 2023. For patients with multiple nodules, the calculator was applied to the index nodule, defined as the one with the highest EU-TIRADS score or, when equal, the largest diameter. Original predicted probabilities were compared with histopathology. Discrimination was assessed by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC); calibration by plot, Hosmer-Lemeshow test, intercept and slope.
resultsAmong 153 patients (mean age 52.1 ± 12.6 years; 86.3% female), 32 (20.9%) had differentiated thyroid carcinoma. Median predicted risk was 37.7% (IQR 21.8-58.6%) in malignant and 1.56% (IQR 0.37-6.2%) in benign nodules (p < 0.001). AUC was 0.877 (95% CI 0.82-0.93). Calibration was imperfect (Hosmer-Lemeshow p = 0.28; intercept 0.85, 95% CI 0.51-1.23; slope 0.78, 95% CI 0.63-0.91). At the 9.2% Youden threshold, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 75.0%, 84.3%, 55.8% and 92.7%, respectively. Subgroup analyses were exploratory.
conclusionsThe calculator showed excellent discrimination but imperfect calibration in this selected surgical cohort. Prospective validation and clinical-impact assessment in unselected populations are required before it is used to alter fine-needle aspiration decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42747638What 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.