ArticleEuropean radiology2015
Development of an online, publicly accessible naive Bayesian decision support tool for mammographic mass lesions based on the American College of Radiology (ACR) BI-RADS lexicon.
Article in European radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of the clinical decision support tool ESR eGUIDE for teaching medical students the appropriate selection of imaging tests: randomized cross-over evaluation.European radiology · 2020Trial
- Machine learning-based model constructed from ultrasound radiomics and clinical features for predicting HER2 status in breast cancer patients with indeterminate (2+) immunohistochemical results.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Bayesian Approach to Predicting Acute Appendicitis Using Ultrasonographic and Clinical Variables in Children.Healthcare informatics research · 2019Article
- Enhancing ontology-driven diagnostic reasoning with a symptom-dependency-aware Naïve Bayes classifier.BMC bioinformatics · 2019Article
- MRI fused with prone FDG PET/CT improves the primary tumour staging of patients with breast cancer.European radiology · 2017Article
- Automated annotation and classification of BI-RADS assessment from radiology reports.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2017Article
- Involvement of Machine Learning for Breast Cancer Image Classification: A Survey.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2017Review
- Applying Naive Bayesian Networks to Disease Prediction: a Systematic Review.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2016Article
- Applying Data Mining Techniques to Improve Breast Cancer Diagnosis.Journal of medical systems · 2016Article
- Breast Imaging in the Era of Big Data: Structured Reporting and Data Mining.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2016Article
- External validation of a publicly available computer assisted diagnostic tool for mammographic mass lesions with two high prevalence research datasets.Medical physics · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo develop and validate a decision support tool for mammographic mass lesions based on a standardized descriptor terminology (BI-RADS lexicon) to reduce variability of practice. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe used separate training data (1,276 lesions, 138 malignant) and validation data (1,177 lesions, 175 malignant). We created naïve Bayes (NB) classifiers from the training data with tenfold cross-validation. Our "inclusive model" comprised BI-RADS categories, BI-RADS descriptors, and age as predictive variables; our "descriptor model" comprised BI-RADS descriptors and age. The resulting NB classifiers were applied to the validation data. We evaluated and compared classifier performance with ROC-analysis.
resultsIn the training data, the inclusive model yields an AUC of 0.959; the descriptor model yields an AUC of 0.910 (P < 0.001). The inclusive model is superior to the clinical performance (BI-RADS categories alone, P < 0.001); the descriptor model performs similarly. When applied to the validation data, the inclusive model yields an AUC of 0.935; the descriptor model yields an AUC of 0.876 (P < 0.001). Again, the inclusive model is superior to the clinical performance (P < 0.001); the descriptor model performs similarly.
conclusionWe consider our classifier a step towards a more uniform interpretation of combinations of BI-RADS descriptors. We provide our classifier at www.ebm-radiology.com/nbmm/index.html . KEY POINTS: • We provide a decision support tool for mammographic masses at www.ebm-radiology.com/nbmm/index.html . • Our tool may reduce variability of practice in BI-RADS category assignment. • A formal analysis of BI-RADS descriptors may enhance radiologists' diagnostic performance.
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.