Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36242643›Full record

SynthesisClinical and experimental medicine2023

Mammography diagnosis of breast cancer screening through machine learning: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Junjie Liu, Jiangjie Lei, Yuhang Ou, Yilong Zhao, Xiaofeng Tuo, Baoming Zhang, Mingwang Shen

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical and experimental medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Mammographic screening: hero or villain.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

7 authors.

Junjie LiuSchool of Medicine, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710061, Shaanxi, People's Republic of China.
Jiangjie LeiSchool of Medicine, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710061, Shaanxi, People's Republic of China.
Yuhang OuSchool of Medicine, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710061, Shaanxi, People's Republic of China.
Yilong ZhaoSchool of Medicine, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710061, Shaanxi, People's Republic of China.
Xiaofeng TuoSchool of Medicine, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710061, Shaanxi, People's Republic of China.
Baoming ZhangCollege of Stomatology, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710004, Shaanxi, People's Republic of China.
Mingwang ShenChina-Australia Joint Research Center for Infectious Diseases, School of Public Health, Xi'an Jiaotong University Health Science Center, Xi'an, 710061, Shaanxi, People's Republic of China. mingwangshen521@xjtu.edu.cn.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 12171387
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast cancer was the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide, and early mammography screening could decrease the breast cancer mortality. Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted diagnose system based on machine learning (ML) methods can help improve the screening accuracy and efficacy. This study aimed to systematically review and make a meta-analysis on the diagnostic accuracy of mammography diagnosis of breast cancer through various ML methods. Springer Link, Science Direct (Elsevier), IEEE Xplore, PubMed and Web of Science were searched for relevant studies published from January 2000 to September 2021. The study was registered with the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (protocol no. CRD42021284227). A Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) was used to assess the included studies, and reporting was evaluated using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The pooled summary estimates for sensitivity, specificity, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for three ML methods (convolutional neural network [CNN], artificial neural network [ANN], support vector machine [SVM]) were calculated. A total of 32 studies with 23,804 images were included in the meta-analysis. The overall pooled estimate for sensitivity, specificity and AUC was 0.914 [95% CI 0.868-0.945], 0.916 [95% CI 0.873-0.945] and 0.945 for mammography diagnosis of breast cancer through three ML methods. The pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC of CNN were 0.961 [95% CI 0.886-0.988], 0.950 [95% CI 0.924-0.967] and 0.974. The pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC of ANN were 0.837 [95% CI 0.772-0.886], 0.894 [95% CI 0.764-0.957] and 0.881. The pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC of SVM were 0.889 [95% CI 0.807-0.939], 0.843 [95% CI 0.724-0.916] and 0.913. Machine learning methods (especially CNN) show excellent performance in mammography diagnosis of breast cancer screening based on retrospective studies. More rigorous prospective studies are needed to evaluate the longitudinal performance of AI.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsArtificial IntelligenceEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMachine LearningMammographyRetrospective StudiesBreast cancer screeningMachine learningMeta-analysisSystematic review

Identifiers

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.