Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31322128›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2019

Computer-Aided Detection for Breast Cancer Screening in Clinical Settings: Scoping Review.

Rafia Masud, Mona Al-Rei, Cynthia Lokker

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 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 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. New Frontiers in Breast Cancer Imaging: The Rise of AI.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Framing the fallibility of Computer-Aided Detection aids cancer detection.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2023
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Deep learning-based breast region extraction of mammographic images combining pre-processing methods and semantic segmentation supported by Deeplab v3.Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine · 2022
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rafia MasudHealth Information Research Unit, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3280-720X
Mona Al-ReiHealth Information Research Unit, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5567-9482
Cynthia LokkerHealth Information Research Unit, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2436-4290
Impact · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith the growth of machine learning applications, the practice of medicine is evolving. Computer-aided detection (CAD) is a software technology that has become widespread in radiology practices, particularly in breast cancer screening for improving detection rates at earlier stages. Many studies have investigated the diagnostic accuracy of CAD, but its implementation in clinical settings has been largely overlooked.

objectiveThe aim of this scoping review was to summarize recent literature on the adoption and implementation of CAD during breast cancer screening by radiologists and to describe barriers and facilitators for CAD use.

methodsThe MEDLINE database was searched for English, peer-reviewed articles that described CAD implementation, including barriers or facilitators, in breast cancer screening and were published between January 2010 and March 2018. Articles describing the diagnostic accuracy of CAD for breast cancer detection were excluded. The search returned 526 citations, which were reviewed in duplicate through abstract and full-text screening. Reference lists and cited references in the included studies were reviewed.

resultsA total of nine articles met the inclusion criteria. The included articles showed that there is a tradeoff between the facilitators and barriers for CAD use. Facilitators for CAD use were improved breast cancer detection rates, increased profitability of breast imaging, and time saved by replacing double reading. Identified barriers were less favorable perceptions of CAD compared to double reading by radiologists, an increase in recall rates of patients for further testing, increased costs, and unclear effect on patient outcomes.

conclusionsThere is a gap in the literature between CAD's well-established diagnostic accuracy and its implementation and use by radiologists. Generally, the perceptions of radiologists have not been considered and details of implementation approaches for adoption of CAD have not been reported. The cost-effectiveness of CAD has not been well established for breast cancer screening in various populations. Further research is needed on how to best facilitate CAD in radiology practices in order to optimize patient outcomes, and the views of radiologists need to be better considered when advancing CAD use.

Indexed as

breast cancercomputer-aided detectionimplementationmachine learningradiologyscreening mammography

Identifiers

PMID31322128
PMCPMC6670274
OpenAlexW2949096937

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.