ArticleScientific reports2021
Deep learning-based computer-aided diagnosis in screening breast ultrasound to reduce false-positive diagnoses.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence in bronchoscopy: a systematic review.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025Pooled it
- Deep learning-based Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System classification and establishment of diagnostic model in breast cancer diagnosis with automated breast ultrasound.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- A nomogram based on conventional ultrasound and elastography for diagnosing BI-RADS category 3-5 lesions.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- The role of AI for improved management of breast cancer: Enhanced diagnosis and health disparity mitigation.Computer methods and programs in biomedicine · 2025Review
- Interpretable deep learning model and nomogram for predicting pathological grading of PNETs based on endoscopic ultrasound.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- The Clinical Application of Artificial Intelligence in Breast Imaging: Current Insights, Challenges, and Future Directions.Journal of breast cancer · 2025Review
- Integration of AI lesion classification, age, and BI-RADS assessment to reduce benign biopsies on breast ultrasound.European radiology · 2025Article
- Machine learning can reliably predict malignancy of breast lesions based on clinical and ultrasonographic features.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- Variational mode directed deep learning framework for breast lesion classification using ultrasound imaging.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Bootstrapping BI-RADS classification using large language models and transformers in breast magnetic resonance imaging reports.Visual computing for industry, biomedicine, and art · 2025Article
- Optimizing breast cancer ultrasound diagnosis: a comparative study of AI model performance and image resolution.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Using the GoogLeNet deep-learning model to distinguish between benign and malignant breast masses based on conventional ultrasound: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Article
- Artificial intelligence in breast ultrasound: application in clinical practice.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2024Article
- Toward AI-supported US Triage of Women with Palpable Breast Lumps in a Low-Resource Setting.Radiology · 2023Article
- Intelligent oncology: The convergence of artificial intelligence and oncology.Journal of the National Cancer Center · 2023Review
- No sonographer, no radiologist: Assessing accuracy of artificial intelligence on breast ultrasound volume sweep imaging scans.PLOS digital health · 2022Article
- A deep learning-based diagnostic pattern for ultrasound breast imaging: can it reduce unnecessary biopsy?Gland surgery · 2022Article
- Article
- Bio-Imaging-Based Machine Learning Algorithm for Breast Cancer Detection.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A major limitation of screening breast ultrasound (US) is a substantial number of false-positive biopsy. This study aimed to develop a deep learning-based computer-aided diagnosis (DL-CAD)-based diagnostic model to improve the differential diagnosis of screening US-detected breast masses and reduce false-positive diagnoses. In this multicenter retrospective study, a diagnostic model was developed based on US images combined with information obtained from the DL-CAD software for patients with breast masses detected using screening US; the data were obtained from two hospitals (development set: 299 imaging studies in 2015). Quantitative morphologic features were obtained from the DL-CAD software, and the clinical findings were collected. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to establish a DL-CAD-based nomogram, and the model was externally validated using data collected from 164 imaging studies conducted between 2018 and 2019 at another hospital. Among the quantitative morphologic features extracted from DL-CAD, a higher irregular shape score (P = .018) and lower parallel orientation score (P = .007) were associated with malignancy. The nomogram incorporating the DL-CAD-based quantitative features, radiologists' Breast Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (BI-RADS) final assessment (P = .014), and patient age (P < .001) exhibited good discrimination in both the development and validation cohorts (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.89 and 0.87). Compared with the radiologists' BI-RADS final assessment, the DL-CAD-based nomogram lowered the false-positive rate (68% vs. 31%, P < .001 in the development cohort; 97% vs. 45% P < .001 in the validation cohort) without affecting the sensitivity (98% vs. 93%, P = .317 in the development cohort; each 100% in the validation cohort). In conclusion, the proposed model showed good performance for differentiating screening US-detected breast masses, thus demonstrating a potential to reduce unnecessary biopsies.
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.