Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37018164›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Early signs of cancer present in the fine detail of mammograms.

Emma M Raat, Karla K Evans

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 47% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Emma M RaatDepartment of Psychology, University of York, York, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6748-5186
Karla K EvansDepartment of Psychology, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
University of York · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The gist of abnormality can be rapidly extracted by medical experts from global information in medical images, such as mammograms, to identify abnormal mammograms with above-chance accuracy-even before any abnormalities are localizable. The current study evaluated the effect of different high-pass filters on expert radiologists' performance in detecting the gist of abnormality in mammograms, especially those acquired prior to any visibly actionable lesions. Thirty-four expert radiologists viewed unaltered and high-pass filtered versions of normal and abnormal mammograms. Abnormal mammograms consisted of obvious abnormalities, subtle abnormalities, and currently normal mammograms from women who would go to develop cancer in 2-3 years. Four levels of high-pass filtering were tested (0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2 cycles per degree (cpd) after brightening and contrast normalizing to the unfiltered mammograms. Overall performance for 0.5 and 1.5 did not change compared to unfiltered but was reduced for 1 and 2 cpd. Critically, filtering that eliminated frequencies below 0.5 and 1.5 cpd significantly boosted performance on mammograms acquired years prior appearance of localizable abnormalities. Filtering at 0.5 did not change the radiologist's decision criteria compared to unfiltered mammograms whereas other filters resulted in more conservative ratings. The findings bring us closer to identifying the characteristics of the gist of the abnormal that affords radiologists detection of the earliest signs of cancer. A 0.5 cpd high-pass filter significantly boosts subtle, global signals of future cancerous abnormalities, potentially providing an image enhancement strategy for rapid assessment of impending cancer risk.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMammographyFemaleHumansImage EnhancementRadiologists

Identifiers

PMID37018164
PMCPMC10075467
OpenAlexW4362602067

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.