Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36457510›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022

Automated lesion detection of breast cancer in [

Jeffrey P Leal, Steven P Rowe, Vered Stearns, Roisin M Connolly, Christos Vaklavas, Minetta C Liu, Anna Maria Storniolo, Richard L Wahl, Martin G Pomper, Lilja B Solnes

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

10 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Jeffrey P LealThe Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Steven P RoweThe Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Vered StearnsDepartment of Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Roisin M ConnollyCancer Research @ UCC, College of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Christos VaklavasHuntsville Cancer Institute, University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL, United States.
Minetta C LiuDivision of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Anna Maria StornioloMelvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, United States.
Richard L WahlMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Martin G PomperThe Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Lilja B SolnesThe Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Johns Hopkins University · USSidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center · USIndiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis · USMallinckrodt (United States) · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · USUniversity College Cork · IEUniversity of Alabama in Huntsville · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Applications based on artificial intelligence (AI) and deep learning (DL) are rapidly being developed to assist in the detection and characterization of lesions on medical images. In this study, we developed and examined an image-processing workflow that incorporates both traditional image processing with AI technology and utilizes a standards-based approach for disease identification and quantitation to segment and classify tissue within a whole-body [ Methods: One hundred thirty baseline PET/CT studies from two multi-institutional preoperative clinical trials in early-stage breast cancer were semi-automatically segmented using techniques based on PERCIST v1.0 thresholds and the individual segmentations classified as to tissue type by an experienced nuclear medicine physician. These classifications were then used to train a convolutional neural network (CNN) to automatically accomplish the same tasks. Results: Our CNN-based workflow demonstrated Sensitivity at detecting disease (either primary lesion or lymphadenopathy) of 0.96 (95% CI [0.9, 1.0], 99% CI [0.87,1.00]), Specificity of 1.00 (95% CI [1.0,1.0], 99% CI [1.0,1.0]), DICE score of 0.94 (95% CI [0.89, 0.99], 99% CI [0.86, 1.00]), and Jaccard score of 0.89 (95% CI [0.80, 0.98], 99% CI [0.74, 1.00]). Conclusion: This pilot work has demonstrated the ability of AI-based workflow using DL-CNNs to specifically identify breast cancer tissue as determined by [

Indexed as

artificial intelligencebreast cancerdeep learningmachine learningPERCIST v1.0

Identifiers

PMID36457510
PMCPMC9705734
OpenAlexW4309212884

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.