Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37284087›Full record

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.

Hongtao Ji, Qiang Zhu, Teng Ma, Yun Cheng, Shuai Zhou, Wei Ren, Huilian Huang, Wen He, Haitao Ran, Litao Ruan and 16 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Ultrasound Image Analysis with Vision Transformers-Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    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

26 authors.

Hongtao JiDepartment of Diagnostic Ultrasound, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Qiang ZhuDepartment of Diagnostic Ultrasound, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Teng MaDepartment of Diagnostic Ultrasound, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Yun ChengDepartment of Diagnostic Ultrasound, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Shuai ZhouDepartment of Diagnostic Ultrasound, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Wei RenDepartment of Diagnostic Ultrasound, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Huilian HuangDepartment of Diagnostic Ultrasound, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Wen HeDepartment of Ultrasonography, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Haitao RanDepartment of Ultrasound, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Litao RuanDepartment of Medical Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China.
Yanli GuoDepartment of Ultrasound, The Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Jiawei TianDepartment of Ultrasound, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China.
Wu ChenDepartment of Ultrasound, The First Hospital, Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, China.
Luzeng ChenDepartment of Ultrasound, The First Hospital, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Zhiyuan WangDepartment of Ultrasound, Diagnosis Center of Ultrasound, Hunan Province Cancer Hospital, Changsha, China.
Qi ZhouDepartment of Ultrasound, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China.
Lijuan NiuDepartment of Ultrasound, Cancer Hospital, National Cancer Center, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Wei ZhangDepartment of Ultrasonography, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
Ruimin YangDepartment of Ultrasound, The Frist Affiliated Hospital of Hebei North University, Zhangjiakou, China.
Qin ChenDepartment of Ultrasound, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Ruifang ZhangDepartment of Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Hui WangDepartment of Ultrasound, China-Japan Union Hospital, Jilin University, Changchun, China.
Li LiDepartment of Ultrasound, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Qingdao, China.
Minghui LiuDepartment of Ultrasound Diagnosis, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Fang NieDepartment of Ultrasound, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou, China.
Aiyun ZhouDepartment of Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Breast Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (BI-RADS)computer-aided diagnosis (CAD)transformersultrasound

Identifiers

PMID37284087
PMCPMC10240028

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.