Trial reportMedical physics2014
Mammographic quantitative image analysis and biologic image composition for breast lesion characterization and classification.
Trial report in Medical physics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tumor cell-adipocyte gap junctions activate lipolysis and contribute to breast tumorigenesis.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Article
- Dual-energy three-compartment breast imaging for compositional biomarkers to improve detection of malignant lesions.Communications medicine · 2021Article
- Article
- Quantification of breast lesion compositions using low-dose spectral mammography: A feasibility study.Medical physics · 2016Article
- Breast tissue decomposition with spectral distortion correction: a postmortem study.Medical physics · 2014Article
- Postmortem validation of breast density using dual-energy mammography.Medical physics · 2014Article
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
Abstract
purposeTo investigate whether biologic image composition of mammographic lesions can improve upon existing mammographic quantitative image analysis (QIA) in estimating the probability of malignancy.
methodsThe study population consisted of 45 breast lesions imaged with dual-energy mammography prior to breast biopsy with final diagnosis resulting in 10 invasive ductal carcinomas, 5 ductal carcinomain situ, 11 fibroadenomas, and 19 other benign diagnoses. Analysis was threefold: (1) The raw low-energy mammographic images were analyzed with an established in-house QIA method, "QIA alone," (2) the three-compartment breast (3CB) composition measure-derived from the dual-energy mammography-of water, lipid, and protein thickness were assessed, "3CB alone", and (3) information from QIA and 3CB was combined, "QIA + 3CB." Analysis was initiated from radiologist-indicated lesion centers and was otherwise fully automated. Steps of the QIA and 3CB methods were lesion segmentation, characterization, and subsequent classification for malignancy in leave-one-case-out cross-validation. Performance assessment included box plots, Bland-Altman plots, and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis.
resultsThe area under the ROC curve (AUC) for distinguishing between benign and malignant lesions (invasive and DCIS) was 0.81 (standard error 0.07) for the "QIA alone" method, 0.72 (0.07) for "3CB alone" method, and 0.86 (0.04) for "QIA+3CB" combined. The difference in AUC was 0.043 between "QIA + 3CB" and "QIA alone" but failed to reach statistical significance (95% confidence interval [-0.17 to + 0.26]).
conclusionsIn this pilot study analyzing the new 3CB imaging modality, knowledge of the composition of breast lesions and their periphery appeared additive in combination with existing mammographic QIA methods for the distinction between different benign and malignant lesion types.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.