Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31031035›Full record

ArticleUltrasound in medicine & biology2019

A Quantitative Ultrasound-Based Multi-Parameter Classifier for Breast Masses.

Haidy G Nasief, Ivan M Rosado-Mendez, James A Zagzebski, Timothy J Hall

Erratum issuedAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Ultrasound in medicine & biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Recent Advances in Attenuation Estimation.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Analytic Global Regularized Backscatter Quantitative Ultrasound.IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control · 2021
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Haidy G NasiefDepartment of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Ivan M Rosado-MendezDepartment of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA; Instituto de Fisica, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico.
James A ZagzebskiDepartment of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Timothy J HallDepartment of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. Electronic address: tjhall@wisc.edu.

Funding

Quantitative Ultrasonic Imaging of the BreastR01CA111289 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN · PI O'BRIEN, WILLIAM D. · 2007 to 2011
$5.0M
Quantitative Mechanical Imaging for Improving Breast Ultrasound DiagnosisR01CA140271 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI HALL, TIMOTHY J · 2009 to 2013
$3.0M
Palpation ImagingR01CA100373 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI HALL, TIMOTHY J · 2004 to 2008
$1.6M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA100373NCI NIH HHS R01 CA111289NCI NIH HHS R01 CA140271
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This manuscript reports preliminary results obtained by combining estimates of two or three (among seven) quantitative ultrasound (QUS) parameters in a model-free, multi-parameter classifier to differentiate breast carcinomas from fibroadenomas (the most common benign solid tumor). Forty-three patients scheduled for core biopsy of a suspicious breast mass were recruited. Radiofrequency echo signal data were acquired using clinical breast ultrasound systems equipped with linear array transducers. The reference phantom method was used to obtain system-independent estimates of the specific attenuation (ATT), the average backscatter coefficients, the effective scatterer diameter (ESD) and an effective scatterer diameter heterogeneity index (ESDHI) over regions of interest within each mass. In addition, the envelope amplitude signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), the Nakagami shape parameter, m, and the maximum collapsed average (maxCA) of the generalized spectrum were also computed. Classification was performed using the minimum Mahalanobis distance to the centroids of the training classes and tested against biopsy results. Classification performance was evaluated with the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The best performance with a two-parameter classifier used the ESD and ESDHI and resulted in an area under the ROC curve of 0.98 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95-1.00). Classification performance improved with three parameters (ATT, ESD and ESDHI) yielding an area under the ROC curve of 0.999 (0.995-1.000). These results suggest that system-independent QUS parameters, when combined in a model-free classifier, are a promising tool to characterize breast tumors. A larger study is needed to further test this idea.

Indexed as

Signal Processing, Computer-AssistedBreastBreast NeoplasmsDiagnosis, DifferentialEvaluation Studies as TopicFemaleFibroadenomaHumansPhantoms, ImagingTransducersUltrasonography, MammaryAttenuationBackscatter coefficientEffective scatterer diameterHeterogeneity indexMahalanobis classierQuantitative ultrasound

Identifiers

PMID31031035
PMCPMC7230148

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.