ArticleJournal of medical systems2019
Automated Breast Density Measurements From Chest Computed Tomography Scans.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
To develop an automated method for quantifying percent breast density from chest computed tomography (CT) scans. A naïve Bayesian classifier based on gray-level intensities and spatial relationships was developed on CT scans from 10 patients diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and imaged as part of routine clinical care. The algorithm was validated on CT scans from 75 additional HL patients. The classifier was developed and validated using a reference dataset with consensus manual segmentation of fibroglandular tissue. Accuracy was evaluated at the pixel-level to examine how well the algorithm identified pixels with fibroglandular tissue using true and false positive fractions (TPF and FPF, respectively). Quantitative estimates of the patient-level CT percent density were contrasted to each other using the concordance correlation coefficient, ρ
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.