Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35111618›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2022

Machine learning-based diagnostic evaluation of shear-wave elastography in BI-RADS category 4 breast cancer screening: a multicenter, retrospective study.

Yi Tang, Minjie Liang, Li Tao, Minjun Deng, Tianfu Li

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Machine learning and new insights for breast cancer diagnosis.The Journal of international medical research · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Artificial intelligence diagnosis based on breast ultrasound imaging.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2022
    Article
  11. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Yi Tang *Department of Medical Technology, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Traditional Chinese Medicine Research and Development, Guangdong Second Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Minjie Liang *Medical Imaging Center, First Affiliated Hospital, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.
Li TaoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.
Minjun DengDepartment of Medical Technology, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Traditional Chinese Medicine Research and Development, Guangdong Second Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Tianfu LiBreast Disease Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CNAnhui Medical University · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University · CNThe First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUltrasound is commonly used in breast cancer screening but lacks quantification ability and diagnostic power due to its low specificity, which can lead to overdiagnosis and unnecessary biopsies. This study evaluated the diagnostic efficacy and clinical utility of adding shear-wave elastography (SWE) to the screening of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 4 breast cancer.

methodsA machine learning-based diagnostic model was constructed using data retrospectively collected from 3 independent cohorts with features selected using lasso regression and support vector machine-recursive feature elimination algorithms. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to preclude confounding baseline characteristics between malignant and benign lesions. A decision curve analysis (DCA) was used to evaluate the clinical benefit of the diagnostic model in identifying high-risk tumor patients for intervention while simultaneously avoiding overtreatment of low-risk patients with integrative evaluation using a net benefit value and treatment reduction rate.

resultsIn our training center, a total of 122 patients were enrolled, and 577 breast tumors were collected. The comparison between malignant and benign lesions revealed significant differences in patient age, tumor size, resistance index (RI), and elasticity values. The maximum elasticity value (Emax) was identified as an independent diagnostic feature and was included in the diagnostic model. The combination of Emax with BI-RADS category 4 demonstrated a significantly better diagnostic efficacy than the BI-RADS category alone [BI-RADS+Emax: AUC =0.908, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.842-0.974; BI-RADS: AUC =0.862, 95% CI: 0.784-0.94; P=0.024] and significantly increased the clinical benefit for patients and policy makers by effectively reducing overdiagnosis and biopsy rates. In the BI-RADS category 4A subgroup, adding Emax to breast cancer screening benefited patients and showed a greater absolute benefit than did the BI-RADS category alone when used for patients with a higher probability of cancer (>0.403), demonstrating a 50% overtreatment reduction.

conclusionsAdding Emax to BI-RADS category 4 breast cancer screening using SWE significantly reduced overdiagnosis and biopsy rates compared with the BI-RADS category alone, especially for BI-RADS 4A patients.

Indexed as

breast cancerBreast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS)cancer screeningshear-wave elastography (SWE)Ultrasound

Identifiers

PMID35111618
PMCPMC8739129
OpenAlexW3208979284

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.