ArticleThe Journal of craniofacial surgery2025
Integration of Clinical, Radiographic, Histologic, and Molecular Findings to Diagnose Craniofacial Fibrous Dysplasia.
Article in The Journal of craniofacial surgery, 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.
- Imaging of Fibrous Dysplasia: A Comprehensive In-Depth Analysis of Monostotic, Polyostotic, Syndromic Forms, and Bone Sarcoma Development.Journal of imaging · 2026Review
- A novel dual-stage robotic-assisted surgical workflow for precision contouring of craniomaxillofacial fibrous dysplasia.BMC oral health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fibrous dysplasia (FD) is a benign bone tumor consisting of fibrotic deposits interwoven with disorganized bone. Craniofacial FD is characterized by progressive expansile overgrowth resulting in facial disfigurement, vision loss, jaw disfunction, and pain. Diagnosis is often made by clinical presentation and suggestive radiographic findings, with histologic and genetic analyses recommended in questionable cases. However, genetic testing of the FD lesions can lead to false negatives, as lesions contain both normal and neoplastic cells. To explore the concordance between FD diagnostic tools, we evaluated clinical history, imaging, histology, and genetic testing of 6 cases. Six subjects presented with abnormal bony overgrowth and imaging suggestive of FD. Histologic examination of excised FD lesions revealed 4 cases with pathologic findings consistent with FD, 1 case diagnosed as juvenile psammomatoid ossifying fibroma (JPOF), and 1 with a vascular malformation. Given that somatic mosaicism underpins FD pathogenesis, targeted sequencing of the GNAS gene was performed from different tissue sources, including blood, bone lesion, and primary bone cell culture. GNAS pathogenic gene variants were detected in the lesion of all 6 cases, including the case demonstrating JPOF histologic features. The authors found the mutational burden of cells containing the pathogenic GNAS variant ranges from 35.8% to 46.8% in abnormal bone and 31.0% to 49.7% in cultured stromal cells. The variable correlation of the radiographic, histologic, and molecular diagnosis in this study highlights the clinical heterogeneity of FD and challenges in accurate diagnosis. By culturing primary stromal cells, the authors provide source material for somatic molecular diagnosis and future experiments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.