Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30927100›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2019

Automatic classification of ultrasound breast lesions using a deep convolutional neural network mimicking human decision-making.

Alexander Ciritsis, Cristina Rossi, Matthias Eberhard, Magda Marcon, Anton S Becker, Andreas Boss

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. A Review of Artificial Intelligence in Breast Imaging.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2024
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Alexander CiritsisInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland. alexander.ciritsis@usz.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0920-9700
Cristina RossiInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.
Matthias EberhardInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.
Magda MarconInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.
Anton S BeckerInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.
Andreas BossInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate a deep convolutional neural network (dCNN) for detection, highlighting, and classification of ultrasound (US) breast lesions mimicking human decision-making according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: One thousand nineteen breast ultrasound images from 582 patients (age 56.3 ± 11.5 years) were linked to the corresponding radiological report. Lesions were categorized into the following classes: no tissue, normal breast tissue, BI-RADS 2 (cysts, lymph nodes), BI-RADS 3 (non-cystic mass), and BI-RADS 4-5 (suspicious). To test the accuracy of the dCNN, one internal dataset (101 images) and one external test dataset (43 images) were evaluated by the dCNN and two independent readers. Radiological reports, histopathological results, and follow-up examinations served as reference. The performances of the dCNN and the humans were quantified in terms of classification accuracies and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

resultsIn the internal test dataset, the classification accuracy of the dCNN differentiating BI-RADS 2 from BI-RADS 3-5 lesions was 87.1% (external 93.0%) compared with that of human readers with 79.2 ± 1.9% (external 95.3 ± 2.3%). For the classification of BI-RADS 2-3 versus BI-RADS 4-5, the dCNN reached a classification accuracy of 93.1% (external 95.3%), whereas the classification accuracy of humans yielded 91.6 ± 5.4% (external 94.1 ± 1.2%). The AUC on the internal dataset was 83.8 (external 96.7) for the dCNN and 84.6 ± 2.3 (external 90.9 ± 2.9) for the humans.

conclusiondCNNs may be used to mimic human decision-making in the evaluation of single US images of breast lesion according to the BI-RADS catalog. The technique reaches high accuracies and may serve for standardization of highly observer-dependent US assessment. KEY POINTS: • Deep convolutional neural networks could be used to classify US breast lesions. • The implemented dCNN with its sliding window approach reaches high accuracies in the classification of US breast lesions. • Deep convolutional neural networks may serve for standardization in US BI-RADS classification.

Indexed as

Neural Networks, ComputerAdultAgedAlgorithmsBreast NeoplasmsClinical Decision-MakingFemaleHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMiddle AgedObserver VariationRetrospective StudiesROC CurveUltrasonography, MammaryArtificial intelligenceBreastMachine learningUltrasound

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.