Observational studyScientific reports2021
Diagnosing thyroid nodules with atypia of undetermined significance/follicular lesion of undetermined significance cytology with the deep convolutional neural network.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial-Intelligence-Assisted Detection of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Cells in Ascitic Fluid.Cancers · 2024Article
- Multi-Omics and Management of Follicular Carcinoma of the Thyroid.Biomedicines · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare the diagnostic performances of physicians and a deep convolutional neural network (CNN) predicting malignancy with ultrasonography images of thyroid nodules with atypia of undetermined significance (AUS)/follicular lesion of undetermined significance (FLUS) results on fine-needle aspiration (FNA). This study included 202 patients with 202 nodules ≥ 1 cm AUS/FLUS on FNA, and underwent surgery in one of 3 different institutions. Diagnostic performances were compared between 8 physicians (4 radiologists, 4 endocrinologists) with varying experience levels and CNN, and AUS/FLUS subgroups were analyzed. Interobserver variability was assessed among the 8 physicians. Of the 202 nodules, 158 were AUS, and 44 were FLUS; 86 were benign, and 116 were malignant. The area under the curves (AUCs) of the 8 physicians and CNN were 0.680-0.722 and 0.666, without significant differences (P > 0.05). In the subgroup analysis, the AUCs for the 8 physicians and CNN were 0.657-0.768 and 0.652 for AUS, 0.469-0.674 and 0.622 for FLUS. Interobserver agreements were moderate (k = 0.543), substantial (k = 0.652), and moderate (k = 0.455) among the 8 physicians, 4 radiologists, and 4 endocrinologists. For thyroid nodules with AUS/FLUS cytology, the diagnostic performance of CNN to differentiate malignancy with US images was comparable to that of physicians with variable experience levels.
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.