ArticleScientific reports2023
Diagnosis of thyroid micronodules on ultrasound using a deep convolutional neural network.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence in preoperative diagnosis of thyroid nodules: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- RCAF for patient-level thyroid ultrasound malignancy prediction under leakage-free evaluation and calibration.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Syncretic Grad-CAM Integrated ViT-CNN Hybrids with Inherent Explainability for Early Thyroid Cancer Diagnosis from Ultrasound.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Enhancing diagnostic precision for thyroid C-TIRADS category 4 nodules: a hybrid deep learning and machine learning model integrating grayscale and elastographic ultrasound features.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Ultrasound-based classification of follicular thyroid Cancer using deep convolutional neural networks with transfer learning.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To assess the performance of deep convolutional neural network (CNN) to discriminate malignant and benign thyroid nodules < 10 mm in size and compare the diagnostic performance of CNN with those of radiologists. Computer-aided diagnosis was implemented with CNN and trained using ultrasound (US) images of 13,560 nodules ≥ 10 mm in size. Between March 2016 and February 2018, US images of nodules < 10 mm were retrospectively collected at the same institution. All nodules were confirmed as malignant or benign from aspirate cytology or surgical histology. Diagnostic performances of CNN and radiologists were assessed and compared for area under curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Subgroup analyses were performed based on nodule size with a cut-off value of 5 mm. Categorization performances of CNN and radiologists were also compared. A total of 370 nodules from 362 consecutive patients were assessed. CNN showed higher negative predictive value (35.3% vs. 22.6%, P = 0.048) and AUC (0.66 vs. 0.57, P = 0.04) than radiologists. CNN also showed better categorization performance than radiologists. In the subgroup of nodules ≤ 5 mm, CNN showed higher AUC (0.63 vs. 0.51, P = 0.08) and specificity (68.2% vs. 9.1%, P < 0.001) than radiologists. Convolutional neural network trained with thyroid nodules ≥ 10 mm in size showed overall better diagnostic performance than radiologists in the diagnosis and categorization of thyroid nodules < 10 mm, especially in nodules ≤ 5 mm.
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.