Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35096609›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021

Apparent Diffusion Coefficient-Based Convolutional Neural Network Model Can Be Better Than Sole Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Improve the Differentiation of Invasive Breast Cancer From Breast Ductal Carcinoma

Haolin Yin, Yu Jiang, Zihan Xu, Wenjun Huang, Tianwu Chen, Guangwu Lin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Haolin YinDepartment of Radiology, Huadong Hospital Affiliated to Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Yu JiangDepartment of Radiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Zihan XuLung Cancer Center, Cancer Center and State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Wenjun HuangDepartment of Radiology, Huadong Hospital Affiliated to Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Tianwu ChenDepartment of Radiology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, China.
Guangwu LinDepartment of Radiology, Huadong Hospital Affiliated to Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Fudan University · CNWest China Hospital of Sichuan University · CNAffiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeBreast ductal carcinoma

methodsThe study retrospectively enrolled 700 patients with primary breast cancer between March 2006 and June 2019 from our hospital, and randomly selected 560 patients as the training and validation sets (ratio of 3 to 1), and 140 patients as the internal test set. An independent external test set of 102 patients during July 2019 and May 2021 from a different scanner of our hospital was selected as the primary cohort using the same criteria. In each set, the status of tumor invasion was confirmed by pathologic examination. The CNN model was constructed to discriminate DCIS from IBC using the training and validation sets. The CNN model was evaluated using the internal and external tests, and compared with the discriminating performance using the mean ADC. The area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated to evaluate the performance of the previous model.

resultsThe AUCs of the ADC-based CNN model using the internal and external test sets were larger than those of the mean ADC (AUC: 0.977 vs. 0.866, P = 0.001; and 0.926 vs. 0.845, P = 0.096, respectively). Regarding the internal test set and external test set, the ADC-based CNN model yielded sensitivities of 0.893 and 0.873, specificities of 0.929 and 0.894, and accuracies of 0.907 and 0.902, respectively. Regarding the two test sets, the mean ADC showed sensitivities of 0.845 and 0.818, specificities of 0.821 and 0.829, and accuracies of 0.836 and 0.824, respectively. Using the ADC-based CNN model, the prediction only takes approximately one second for a single lesion.

conclusionThe ADC-based CNN model can improve the differentiation of IBC from DCIS with higher accuracy and less time.

Indexed as

breast cancerdeep learningdiffusion-weighted imagingductal carcinoma in situmagnetic resonance imaging

Identifiers

PMID35096609
PMCPMC8795910
OpenAlexW4206830707

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.