ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Differentiation between Phyllodes Tumors and Fibroadenomas through Breast Ultrasound: Deep-Learning Model Outperforms Ultrasound Physicians.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hierarchical diagnosis of breast phyllodes tumors enabled by deep learning of ultrasound images: a retrospective multi-center study.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025Article
- Fibroepithelial lesions: assessing the risk of malignant phyllodes tumors in the breast.Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologieArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The preoperative differentiation of breast phyllodes tumors (PTs) from fibroadenomas (FAs) plays a critical role in identifying an appropriate surgical treatment. Although several imaging modalities are available, reliable differentiation between PT and FA remains a great challenge for radiologists in clinical work. Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted diagnosis has shown promise in distinguishing PT from FA. However, a very small sample size was adopted in previous studies. In this work, we retrospectively enrolled 656 breast tumors (372 FAs and 284 PTs) with 1945 ultrasound images in total. Two experienced ultrasound physicians independently evaluated the ultrasound images. Meanwhile, three deep-learning models (i.e., ResNet, VGG, and GoogLeNet) were applied to classify FAs and PTs. The robustness of the models was evaluated by fivefold cross validation. The performance of each model was assessed by using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were also calculated. Among the three models, the ResNet model yielded the highest AUC value, of 0.91, with an accuracy value of 95.3%, a sensitivity value of 96.2%, and a specificity value of 94.7% in the testing data set. In contrast, the two physicians yielded an average AUC value of 0.69, an accuracy value of 70.7%, a sensitivity value of 54.4%, and a specificity value of 53.2%. Our findings indicate that the diagnostic performance of deep learning is better than that of physicians in the distinction of PTs from FAs. This further suggests that AI is a valuable tool for aiding clinical diagnosis, thereby advancing precision therapy.
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.