Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33496829›Full record

Trial reportEuropean radiology2021

A deep learning model integrating mammography and clinical factors facilitates the malignancy prediction of BI-RADS 4 microcalcifications in breast cancer screening.

Huanhuan Liu, Yanhong Chen, Yuzhen Zhang, Lijun Wang, Ran Luo, Haoting Wu, Chenqing Wu, Huiling Zhang, Weixiong Tan, Hongkun Yin and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Artificial intelligence in mammography: a systematic review of the external validation.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Huanhuan LiuDepartment of Radiology, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No. 1665 Kongjiang Road, Shanghai, 200092, China.
Yanhong ChenDepartment of Radiology, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No. 1665 Kongjiang Road, Shanghai, 200092, China.
Yuzhen ZhangDepartment of Radiology, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No. 1665 Kongjiang Road, Shanghai, 200092, China.
Lijun WangDepartment of Radiology, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No. 1665 Kongjiang Road, Shanghai, 200092, China.
Ran LuoDepartment of Radiology, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No. 1665 Kongjiang Road, Shanghai, 200092, China.
Haoting WuDepartment of Radiology, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No. 1665 Kongjiang Road, Shanghai, 200092, China.
Chenqing WuDepartment of Radiology, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No. 1665 Kongjiang Road, Shanghai, 200092, China.
Huiling ZhangBeijing Infervision Technology Co. Ltd., Beijing, 100025, China.
Weixiong TanBeijing Infervision Technology Co. Ltd., Beijing, 100025, China.
Hongkun YinBeijing Infervision Technology Co. Ltd., Beijing, 100025, China.
Dengbin WangDepartment of Radiology, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No. 1665 Kongjiang Road, Shanghai, 200092, China. wangdengbin@xinhuamed.com.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0790-9554
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · CNInferVision (China) · CN

Funding

National Key Research and Development Program of China No. 2017YFC0109003National Natural Science Foundation of China No. 81901695Research Fund of Hospital Project No. 18YJ16Shanghai Municipal Commission No. 2018ZHYL0108Shanghai Sailing Program No.19YF1433100
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate the value of full-field digital mammography-based deep learning (DL) in predicting malignancy of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4 microcalcifications.

methodsA total of 384 patients with 414 pathologically confirmed microcalcifications (221 malignant and 193 benign) were randomly allocated into the training, validation, and testing datasets (272/71/71 lesions) in this retrospective study. A combined DL model was developed incorporating mammography and clinical variables. Model performance was evaluated by using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and compared with the clinical model, stand-alone DL image model, and BI-RADS approach. The predictive performance for malignancy was also compared between the combined model and human readers (2 juniors and 2 seniors).

resultsThe combined DL model demonstrated favorable AUC, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.910, 85.3%, and 91.9% in predicting BI-RADS 4 malignant microcalcifications in the testing dataset, which outperformed the clinical model, DL image model, and BI-RADS with AUCs of 0.799, 0.841, and 0.804, respectively. The combined model achieved non-inferior performance as senior radiologists (p = 0.860, p = 0.800) and outperformed junior radiologists (p = 0.155, p = 0.029). The diagnostic performance of two junior radiologists was improved after artificial intelligence assistance with AUCs increased to 0.854 and 0.901 from 0.816 (p = 0.556) and 0.773 (p = 0.046), while the interobserver agreement was improved with a kappa value increased to 0.843 from 0.331.

conclusionsThe combined deep learning model can improve the malignancy prediction of BI-RADS 4 microcalcifications in screening mammography and assist junior radiologists to achieve better performance, which can facilitate clinical decision-making. KEY POINTS: • The combined deep learning model demonstrated high diagnostic power, sensitivity, and specificity for predicting malignant BI-RADS 4 mammographic microcalcifications. • The combined model achieved similar performance with senior breast radiologists, while it outperformed junior breast radiologists. • Deep learning could improve the diagnostic performance of junior radiologists and facilitate clinical decision-making.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCalcinosisDeep LearningArtificial IntelligenceEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMammographyRetrospective StudiesBreast cancerCalcificationDeep learningMammographyScreening

Identifiers

PMID33496829
OpenAlexW3122649642

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.