ArticleActa clinica Croatica2020
WHAT CAN WE ACTUALLY SEE USING COMPUTER AIDED DETECTION IN MAMMOGRAPHY?
Article in Acta clinica Croatica, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The main goal of this study was to compare the results of computer aided detection (CAD) analysis in screening mammography with the results independently obtained by two radiologists for the same samples and to determine the sensitivity and specificity of CAD for breast lesions. A total of 436 mammograms were analyzed with CAD. For each screening mammogram, the changes in breast tissue recognized by CAD were compared to the interpretations of two radiologists. The sensitivity and specificity of CAD for breast lesions were calculated using contingency table. The sensitivity of CAD for all lesions was 54% and specificity 16%. CAD sensitivity for suspicious lesions only was 86%. CAD sensitivity for microcalcifications was 100% and specificity 45%. CAD mainly 'mistook' glandular parenchyma, connective tissue and blood vessels for breast lesions, and blood vessel calcifications and axillary folds for microcalcifications. In this study, we confirmed CAD as an excellent tool for recognizing microcalcifications with 100% sensitivity. However, it should not be used as a stand-alone tool in breast screening mammography due to the high rate of false-positive results.
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.