ArticleHealth information science and systems2020
A decision support system for mammography reports interpretation.
Article in Health information science and systems, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Interpretability of Clinical Decision Support Systems Based on Artificial Intelligence from Technological and Medical Perspective: A Systematic Review.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2023Pooled it
- Theory of radiologist interaction with instant messaging decision support tools: A sequential-explanatory study.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Breast cancer classification based on convolutional neural network and image fusion approaches using ultrasound images.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Construction of a knowledge graph for breast cancer diagnosis based on Chinese electronic medical records: development and usability study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMammography plays a key role in the diagnosis of breast cancer; however, decision-making based on mammography reports is still challenging. This paper aims to addresses the challenges regarding decision-making based on mammography reports and propose a Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) using data mining methods to help clinicians to interpret mammography reports.
methodsFor this purpose, 2441 mammography reports were collected from Imam Khomeini Hospital from March 21, 2018, to March 20, 2019. In the first step, these mammography reports are analyzed and program code is developed to transform the reports into a dataset. Then, the weight of every feature of the dataset is calculated. Random Forest, Naïve Bayes, K-nearest neighbor (K-NN), Deep Learning classifiers are applied to the dataset to build a model capable of predicting the need for referral to biopsy. Afterward, the models are evaluated using cross-validation with measuring Area Under Curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity indices.
resultsThe mammography type (diagnostic or screening), mass and calcification features mentioned in the reports are the most important features for decision-making. Results reveal that the K-NN model is the most accurate and specific classifier with the accuracy and specificity values of 84.06% and 84.72% respectively. The Random Forest classifier has the best sensitivity and AUC with the sensitivity and AUC values of 87.74% and 0.905 respectively.
conclusionsAccordingly, data mining approaches are proved to be a helpful tool to make the final decision as to whether patients should be referred to biopsy or not based on mammography reports. The developed CDSS may also be helpful especially for less experienced radiologists.
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.