ArticleCureus2020
Current Available Computer-Aided Detection Catches Cancer but Requires a Human Operator.
Article in Cureus, 2020. 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study intends to show that the current widely used computer-aided detection (CAD) may be helpful, but it is not an adequate replacement for the human input required to interpret mammograms accurately. However, this is not to discredit CAD's ability but to further encourage the adoption of artificial intelligence-based algorithms into the toolset of radiologists.
methodsThis study will use Hologic (Marlborough, MA, USA) and General Electric (Boston, MA, USA) CAD read images provided by patients found to be Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 6 from 2019 to 2020. In addition, patient information will be pulled from our institution's emergency medical record to confirm the findings seen in the pathologist report and the radiology read.
resultsData from a total of 24 female breast cancer patients from January 31st 2019 to April 31st 2020, was gathered from our institution's emergency medical record with restrictions in patient numbers due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Within our patient population, CAD imaging was shown to be statistically significant in misidentifying breast cancer, while radiologist interpretation still proves to be the most effective tool.
conclusionDespite a low sample size due to COVID-19, this study found that CAD did have significant difficulty in differentiating benign vs. malignant lesions. CAD should not be ignored, but it is not specific enough. Although CAD often marks cancer, it also marks several areas that are not cancer. CAD is currently best used as an additional tool for the radiologist.
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.