ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2022
Comprehensive quantitative malignant risk prediction of pure grouped amorphous calcifications: clinico-mammographic nomogram.
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 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.
- Novel study on the prediction of BI-RADS 4A positive lesions in mammography using deep learning technology and clinical factors.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Interest in mammography across European countries: a retrospective "Google Trends" comparative study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pure grouped amorphous calcifications are classified as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 4B suspicious calcifications and recommended for biopsy. However, the biopsies often reveal benign findings, especially in screening mammograms (92.4-97.2%). Methods: Mammograms of 699 pure grouped amorphous calcifications with final pathological results were analyzed in this retrospective study. The maximum span (MS) of the group of calcifications and the MS of the parallel/vertical direction of the mammary duct (MPS/MVS) were measured, and the MPS to MVS ratio was calculated. Based on the MS and ratio, 2 prediction nomograms with other clinic-mammographic features were developed. The discrimination performance of the models was assessed and compared by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Scatterplots were created to determine the cutoff values with fewer misdiagnoses of malignant calcifications and fewer false positives. Results: Ultimately, 2 prediction models were successfully developed based on the 4 risk factors of age, purpose of the mammogram, whether multiple or single calcifications, and the MS [odds ratio (OR) =1.06, P=0.02]/ratio (OR =6.05, P<0.001). Both models had good discrimination. The ratio model performed better than the MS model in the training cohort (AUC of 0.875 and 0.834, respectively, P=0.003) and validation cohort (AUC 0.908 and 0.867, respectively, P=0.047). For the group with probably benign calcifications (as detected by the ratio nomogram), the malignancy rates were 2.7% [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.00% to 6.53%] and 1.19% (95% CI: 0.06% to 7.37%) in the training and validation cohorts, respectively, and 44.12% and 47.70% of benign biopsies were detected in the training and validation cohorts, respectively. Conclusions: The clinico-mammographic quantitative malignancy risk prediction nomogram showed favorable discrimination and calibration performance. The ratio model showed better diagnostic efficiency than the MS model, and identified >40% of benign biopsies.
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.