ArticleClinical breast cancer2020
Prospective Analysis Using a Novel CNN Algorithm to Distinguish Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia From Ductal Carcinoma in Situ in Breast.
Article in Clinical breast cancer, 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.
- Artificial intelligence in the radiologic assessment of ductal carcinomaFrontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Review
- Overview of incidental breast lesions.The British journal of radiology · 2023Article
- Application of deep learning to identify ductal carcinomaQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWe previously developed a convolutional neural networks (CNN)-based algorithm to distinguish atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) from ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) using a mammographic dataset. The purpose of this study is to further validate our CNN algorithm by prospectively analyzing an unseen new dataset to evaluate the diagnostic performance of our algorithm. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this institutional review board-approved study, a new dataset composed of 280 unique mammographic images from 140 patients was used to test our CNN algorithm. All patients underwent stereotactic-guided biopsy of calcifications and underwent surgical excision with available final pathology. The ADH group consisted of 122 images from 61 patients with the highest pathology diagnosis of ADH. The DCIS group consisted of 158 images from 79 patients with the highest pathology diagnosis of DCIS. Two standard mammographic magnification views (craniocaudal and mediolateral/lateromedial) of the calcifications were used for analysis. Calcifications were segmented using an open source software platform 3D slicer and resized to fit a 128 × 128 pixel bounding box. Our previously developed CNN algorithm was used. Briefly, a 15 hidden layer topology was used. The network architecture contained 5 residual layers and dropout of 0.25 after each convolution. Diagnostic performance metrics were analyzed including sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The "positive class" was defined as the pure ADH group in this study and thus specificity represents minimizing the amount of falsely labeled pure ADH cases.
resultsArea under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.90 (95% confidence interval, ± 0.04). Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity was 80.7%, 63.9%, and 93.7%, respectively.
conclusionProspectively tested on new unseen data, our CNN algorithm distinguished pure ADH from DCIS using mammographic images with high specificity.
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.