ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2017
Detecting Breast Cancer with a Dual-Modality Device.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2017. 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.
- CNN-Based Cross-Modality Fusion for Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection Using Mammography and Ultrasound.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2024Article
- Novel imaging approaches to screen for breast cancer: Recent advances and future prospects.Medical engineering & physics · 2019Review
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
Abstract
Although mammography has been the gold standard for the early detection of breast cancer, if a woman has dense breast tissue, a false negative diagnosis may occur. Breast ultrasound, whether hand-held or automated, is a useful adjunct to mammography but adds extra time and cost. The primary aim was to demonstrate that our second-generation Aceso system, which combines full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) in a single platform, is able to produce improved quality images that provide clinically meaningful results. Aceso was first tested using two industry standards: a Contrast Detail Mammography (CDMAM) phantom to assess the FFDM images, and the CIRS 054GS phantom to evaluate the ABUS images. In addition, 25 women participated in a clinical trial: 14 were healthy volunteers, while 11 were patients referred by the breast clinic at Groote Schuur Hospital. The CDMAM phantom results showed the FFDM results were better than the European Reference (EUREF) standard of "acceptable" and were approaching "achievable". The ABUS results showed a lateral and axial spatial resolution of 0.5 mm and an adequate depth penetration of 80 mm. Our second-generation Aceso system, with its improved quality of clinical FFDM and ABUS images, has demonstrated its potential for the early detection of breast cancer in a busy clinic.
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.