Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36686848›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2022

A prospective evaluation of breast thermography enhanced by a novel machine learning technique for screening breast abnormalities in a general population of women presenting to a secondary care hospital.

Richa Bansal, Sathiakar Collison, Lakshmi Krishnan, Bharat Aggarwal, Mathukumalli Vidyasagar, Siva Teja Kakileti, Geetha Manjunath

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. [Infrared thermography outcomes in women with suspected breast cancer].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2026
    Observational
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
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.

Richa BansalRadiology Services, Max Super Speciality Hospital, Saket, New Delhi, India.
Sathiakar CollisonDepartment of Clinical Affairs, Niramai Health Analytix Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, India.
Lakshmi KrishnanDepartment of Clinical Affairs, Niramai Health Analytix Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, India.
Bharat AggarwalRadiology Services, Max Super Speciality Hospital, Saket, New Delhi, India.
Mathukumalli VidyasagarSERB National Science Chair, Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad, Kandi, India.
Siva Teja KakiletiDepartment of Clinical Affairs, Niramai Health Analytix Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, India.
Geetha ManjunathDepartment of Clinical Affairs, Niramai Health Analytix Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Artificial intelligence-enhanced breast thermography is being evaluated as an ancillary modality in the evaluation of breast disease. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of Thermalytix, a CE-marked, AI-based thermal imaging test, with respect to conventional mammography. Methods: A prospective, comparative study performed between 15 December 2018 and 06 January 2020 evaluated the performance of Thermalytix in 459 women with both dense and nondense breast tissue. Both symptomatic and asymptomatic women, aged 30-80 years, presenting to the hospital underwent Thermalytix followed by 2-D mammography and appropriate confirmatory investigations to confirm malignancy. The radiologist interpreting the mammograms and the technician using the Thermalytix tool were blinded to the others' findings. The statistical analysis was performed by a third party. Results: A total of 687 women were recruited, of whom 459 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Twenty-one malignancies were detected (21/459, 4.6%). The overall sensitivity of Thermalytix was 95.24% (95% CI, 76.18-99.88), and the specificity was 88.58% (95% CI, 85.23-91.41). In women with dense breasts ( Conclusion: Thermalytix showed acceptable sensitivity and specificity with respect to mammography in the overall patient population. Thermalytix outperformed mammography in women with dense breasts and those reported as BI-RADS 0.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencebreast densitymammographyprospective studiesthermography

Identifiers

PMID36686848
PMCPMC9846488

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.