In one paragraphArticle in Radiology. Imaging cancer, 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
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 registryThe 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 literatureWho cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
4 · The recordCorrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
5 · Who and what moneyAuthors and funding
11 authors.
Hongsheng Ye *Department of Ultrasound, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, No. 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou 510060, P. R. China.ORCID 0009-0001-1933-0697 Xiaoxian Li *Department of Ultrasound, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, No. 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou 510060, P. R. China.
Chuan PengDepartment of Ultrasound, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, No. 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou 510060, P. R. China.
Qing LiDepartment of Ultrasound, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, No. 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou 510060, P. R. China.ORCID 0000-0002-8632-9637 Liang YangDepartment of Ultrasound, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, No. 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou 510060, P. R. China.ORCID 0009-0003-5916-6494 Jichong HeDepartment of Ultrasound, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, No. 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou 510060, P. R. China.ORCID 0009-0001-4478-3153 Li MengDepartment of Pathology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China.
Peng LiDepartment of Pathology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China.
Yixin HuDepartment of Ultrasound, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, No. 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou 510060, P. R. China.ORCID 0000-0003-3552-5774 Lingling Li *Department of Ultrasound, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, No. 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou 510060, P. R. China.ORCID 0000-0003-4596-8712 Jianhua Zhou *Department of Ultrasound, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, No. 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou 510060, P. R. China.ORCID 0000-0003-2096-8126 Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
6 · The paper itselfAbstract
Purpose To compare the diagnostic performance of superresolution US (SRUS) with that of US and contrast-enhanced US (CEUS) for detecting lymph node (LN) metastasis in rabbits. Materials and Methods US, CEUS, and SRUS were performed in 30 rabbits with 16 egg yolk-induced hyperplastic and 14 VX2 tumor-bearing metastatic LNs. Qualitative US, CEUS, and SRUS features and quantitative SRUS-based parameters of LN microvasculature were analyzed. Major qualitative features and quantitative parameters associated with metastatic LNs were identified, with histopathologic evaluation as reference. Spearman correlation between features and parameters was analyzed. Results Among qualitative features, chaotic microvasculature at SRUS achieved the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.81, 1.00), outperforming cortical thickening at US (0.67 [95% CI: 0.51, 0.82];
Indexed as
Lymphatic MetastasisLymph NodesMicrovesselsAnimalsContrast MediaFemaleRabbitsUltrasonographyContrast MediaUltrasoundUltrasound-Contrast
Identifiers
PMID42788884
PMCPMC13620326
What OpenQuestion holds
Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390