ArticleEuropean radiology2017
Ultrasound positive predictive values by BI-RADS categories 3-5 for solid masses: An independent reader study.
Article in European radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of an interpretable ultrasound radiomics model for benign and malignant classification of breast lesions: a multicenter large-sample study.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Factors predicting the risk of breast cancer: construction and validation of a nomogram model.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Development and validation of an integrated model combining deep learning, radiomics, and clinical and breast ultrasound features for Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 4A lesion malignancy classification.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- The Importance of Surgeon-Performed Point-of-Care Breast Sonography in the Management of Complex Breast Tumors.Maedica · 2025Article
- Variation in Pathological Appearance Across Repeated Sampling from Probably Benign Breast Lesions.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Can Short-term Follow-up with Ultrasound be Offered as an Acceptable Alternative to Immediate Biopsy or Surgery for Patients with First Ultrasound Diagnosis of BI-RADS 4A Lesions?World journal of surgery · 2023Article
- Development and validation of a transformer-based CAD model for improving the consistency of BI-RADS category 3-5 nodule classification among radiologists: a multiple center study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Ultrasound-based deep learning in the establishment of a breast lesion risk stratification system: a multicenter study.European radiology · 2023Article
- Development and External Validation of a Simple-To-Use Dynamic Nomogram for Predicting Breast Malignancy Based on Ultrasound Morphometric Features: A Retrospective Multicenter Study.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Ultrasound classification of non-mass breast lesions following BI-RADS presents high positive predictive value.PloS one · 2022Article
- Can artificial intelligence replace ultrasound as a complementary tool to mammogram for the diagnosis of the breast cancer?The British journal of radiology · 2021Article
- Serum semaphorin4C as an auxiliary diagnostic biomarker for breast cancer.Clinical and translational medicine · 2021Article
- Evaluation of the accuracy of mammography, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in suspect breast lesions.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2020Article
- Automatic classification of ultrasound breast lesions using a deep convolutional neural network mimicking human decision-making.European radiology · 2019Article
- Effect of a Deep Learning Framework-Based Computer-Aided Diagnosis System on the Diagnostic Performance of Radiologists in Differentiating between Malignant and Benign Masses on Breast Ultrasonography.Korean journal of radiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe assessed multiple readers' positive predictive values (PPVs) for ACR BI-RADS 3, 4a, 4b, 4c and 5 masses on ultrasound (US) pre- and post-proposed guidelines.
methodsThis retrospective, IRB-approved study included four American and four non-American readers who assigned BI-RADS categories for US images of 374 biopsy-proved masses. Readers were offered guidelines and re-classified the masses. We assessed readers' abilities to achieve ACR benchmarks BI-RADS categories pre- and post-guidelines.
resultsPPVs increased with BI-RADS category. The PPVs pre- and post-guidelines were 6.0% and 4.4% for category 3, 27.3% and 30.5% for category 4a, 49.9% and 51.5% for category 4b, 69.0% and 67.4% for category 4c, and 79.3% and 80.1% for category 5. Readers achieved the PPV benchmark for category 4c, but not for categories 3, 4a, 4b and 5, with no significant improvement after guidelines. Regular BI-RADS 4 subcategory users missed benchmarks by less than non-regular users.
conclusionPre- and post-guidelines, readers' PPVs increased with BI-RADS categories, ACR PPV benchmarks were achieved in category 4c, missed in other categories, especially in the critical 4a subcategory, where the PPV was too high. BI-RADS 4 subcategory users performed better than non-users. KEY POINTS: • Readers failed to achieve benchmarks for BI-RADS 4 subcategories, especially 4a. • USA and Brazilian readers performed similarly in ACR BI-RADS 4 subcategorization. • Proposed guidelines did not improve overall, USA or Brazilian reader performance. • Regularly BI-RADS 4 subcategory users performed better than did non-users. • US features distinguished between benign and malignant, not BI-RADS 4 subcategories.
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.