ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2023
Development and validation of a transformer-based CAD model for improving the consistency of BI-RADS category 3-5 nodule classification among radiologists: a multiple center study.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing diagnostic precision for BI-RADS 4a breast nodules: A multimodal AI model integrating ultrasound radiomics, hemodynamic signatures, and clinical profiles.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- A multi-scale hybrid ResNet-transformer with distance-aware learning for interpretable BI-RADS mammographic classification.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Development and validation of an integrated model combining deep learning, radiomics, and clinical and breast ultrasound features for Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 4A lesion malignancy classification.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Using a Large Language Model for Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Classification and Malignancy Prediction to Enhance Breast Ultrasound Diagnosis: Retrospective Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Development and validation of an intratumoral-peritumoral deep transfer learning fusion model for differentiating BI-RADS 3-4 breast nodules.Gland surgery · 2025Article
- Ultrasound-based deep learning radiomics for multi-stage assisted diagnosis in reducing unnecessary biopsies of BI-RADS 4A lesions.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- MacNet: a mobile attention classification network combining convolutional neural network and transformer for the differentiation of cervical cancer.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Ultrasound Image Analysis with Vision Transformers-Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Significant differences exist in the classification outcomes for radiologists using ultrasonography-based Breast Imaging Reporting and Data Systems for diagnosing category 3-5 (BI-RADS 3-5) breast nodules, due to a lack of clear and distinguishing image features. Consequently, this retrospective study investigated the improvement of BI-RADS 3-5 classification consistency using a transformer-based computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) model. Methods: Independently, 5 radiologists performed BI-RADS annotations on 21,332 breast ultrasonographic images collected from 3,978 female patients from 20 clinical centers in China. All images were divided into training, validation, testing, and sampling sets. The trained transformer-based CAD model was then used to classify test images, for which sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), accuracy (ACC), area under the curve (AUC), and calibration curve were evaluated. Variations in these metrics among the 5 radiologists were analyzed by referencing BI-RADS classification results for the sampling test set provided by CAD to determine whether classification consistency (the k value), SEN, SPE, and ACC could be improved. Results: After the training set (11,238 images) and validation set (2,996 images) were learned by the CAD model, the classification ACC of the CAD model applied to the test set (7,098 images) was 94.89% in category 3, 96.90% in category 4A, 95.49% in category 4B, 92.28% in category 4C, and 95.45% in category 5 nodules. Based on pathological results, the AUC of the CAD model was 0.924 and the predicted probability of CAD was a little higher than the actual probability in the calibration curve. After referencing BI-RADS classification results, the adjustments were made to 1,583 nodules, of which 905 were classified to a lower category and 678 to a higher category in the sampling test set. As a result, the ACC (72.41-82.65%), SEN (32.73-56.98%), and SPE (82.46-89.26%) of the classification by each radiologist were significantly improved on average, with the consistency (k values) in almost all of them increasing to >0.6. Conclusions: The radiologist's classification consistency was markedly improved with almost all the k values increasing by a value greater than 0.6, and the diagnostic efficiency was also improved by approximately 24% (32.73% to 56.98%) and 7% (82.46% to 89.26%) for SEN and SPE, respectively, of the total classification on average. The transformer-based CAD model can help to improve the radiologist's diagnostic efficacy and consistency with others in the classification of BI-RADS 3-5 nodules.
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.