ReviewNeuroradiology2025
Tumour mimics in paediatric neuroimaging.
Review in Neuroradiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tumor-specific PET tracer imaging and contrast-enhanced Mri based tumor volume differences inspection of glioblastoma patients.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Cerebellar Cavernoma Resection: Case Report with Long-Term Follow-Up.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
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
Distinguishing tumours from other conditions is a primary challenge in paediatric neuro-radiology. This paper aims to describe mimics, which are non-neoplastic conditions that have features similar to a neoplastic process caused by a non-neoplastic entity, and chameleons, which are uncommon presentations of brain tumours that are mistaken for other diagnoses. By doing so, we aim to raise awareness of these conditions and prevent inappropriate investigations or treatment in children. When suspecting a brain tumour, a detailed history, physical examination, and appropriate laboratory investigations can provide important clues about the nature of the lesion and narrow the list of possible differential diagnoses. Presented here is a collection of cases that have puzzled us for various reasons, including the absence of symptoms, coincidental timing, or misleading radiological features. Included in this pictorial essay are cases in which only a biopsy has helped us to make the correct diagnosis, as well as cases in which an unsuccessful biopsy has allowed us to evaluate hypotheses that were previously unaddressed. The paper also highlights the limited knowledge we have about the intercausality between malformations and later onset tumours, and the spectrum of manifestations that metabolic and genetic disorders can have.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39576299What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.