Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40802091›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2026

Integrated [

Peng Hou, Jie Lv, Weige Tan, Shaonan Zhong, Sihao Liang, Youcai Li, Miao Ke, Penghao Chen, Ruiyue Zhao, Huizhen Zhong and 4 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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 registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Peng Hou *Department of Radiology, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences), Southern Medical University, 106 Zhongshan 2nd Road, Guangzhou, 510080, China.
Jie Lv *Department of Nuclear Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, 510010, China.
Weige Tan *Department of Breast Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, 510010, China.
Shaonan ZhongDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, 510010, China.
Sihao LiangDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, 510010, China.
Youcai LiDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, 510010, China.
Miao KeDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, 510010, China.
Penghao ChenDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, 510010, China.
Ruiyue ZhaoDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, 510010, China.
Huizhen ZhongDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, 510010, China.
Qiao ZouDepartment of Radiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, 510010, China.
Xigang YeDepartment of Breast Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, 510010, China. 39357932@qq.com.
Xinlu WangDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, 510010, China. 71lu@163.com.
Changhong LiangDepartment of Radiology, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences), Southern Medical University, 106 Zhongshan 2nd Road, Guangzhou, 510080, China. liangchanghong@gdph.org.cn.

Funding

the Guangdong Provincial Medical Science and Technology Research Fund B2023128the Guangdong regional joint fund 2022A1515110941the Science and Technology Projects in Guangzhou, China 2024A03J1157
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study assessed the diagnostic efficacy of fluorine-18-labeled fibroblast activation protein inhibitor 42 ([

methodsA prospective study enrolled 64 women with BI-RADS 4 or 5 lesions identified through mammography or ultrasound. All participants underwent contrast-enhanced [

resultsThe study included 114 breast lesions (89 malignant, 25 benign) and 114 lymph node groups (82 malignant, 32 benign). In detecting primary breast lesions, the quantitative PET/MR based on TBR (PET/MR-TBR) demonstrated superior specificity over breast MRI (96% vs. 68%, P = 0.016), corresponding to a marked reduction in false positive rate from 32% (8/25) to 4.0% (1/25; P = 0.027), while maintaining comparable sensitivity (94% vs. 97%, P = 1.00). For BI-RADS 3/4 lesions on breast MRI, PET/MR-TBR achieved an AUC of 0.90, with a significant NRI of 90.5% (P = 0.018) for BI-RADS 4 lesions. For breast lesions smaller than 10 mm, PET/MR-TBR increased specificity to 94% versus 75% for breast MRI (P > 0.05). For axillary lymph node evaluation, the quantitative PET/MR based on SUV

conclusion[

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMultimodal ImagingPositron-Emission TomographyAdultAgedFemaleHumansLymphatic MetastasisMiddle AgedProspective StudiesBreast cancerDiagnostic accuracyFibroblast activation protein inhibitorMolecular imagingPET/MR

Identifiers

PMID40802091

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.