Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37908910›Full record

ArticleCureus2023

Can Artificial Intelligence Beat Humans in Detecting Breast Malignancy on Mammograms?

Mariam Malik, Saeeda Yasmin, Anish Kumar, Yumna Hassan, Yusra Rizvi, Iffat

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 43% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.

Mariam MalikRadiology, Atomic Energy Cancer Hospital, Nuclear Medicine, Oncology and Radiotherapy Institute (NORI), Islamabad, PAK.
Saeeda YasminInternal Medicine, Fatima Jinnah Medical University, Lahore, PAK.
Anish KumarInternal Medicine, Ghulam Muhammad Mahar Medical College and Hospital, Sukkur, PAK.
Yumna HassanInternal Medicine, Insight Hospital and Medical Center Chicago, Chicago, USA.
Yusra RizviInternal Medicine, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, PAK.
IffatRadiology, Atomic Energy Cancer Hospital, Nuclear Medicine, Oncology and Radiotherapy Institute (NORI), Islamabad, PAK.
Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission · PK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe study was aimed at identifying how useful Computer-Aided Detection (CAD) could be in reducing false-negative reporting in mammography and early detection of breast cancer at an early stage as the best protection is early detection. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis retrospective study was conducted in a tertiary care setup of Atomic Energy Cancer Hospital, Nuclear Medicine, Oncology and Radiotherapy Institute (AECH-NORI), where 33 patients with suspicious findings on mammography and subsequent biopsy-proven malignancy were included. The findings of mammography including the lesion type, breast parenchymal density, and sensitivity of CAD detection, as well as the final biopsy results, were recorded. A second group of 40 normal screening mammograms was also included who had no symptoms, had Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System category I(BI-RADS I) mammograms, and had no pathology identified on correlative sonomammography as well.

resultsA total of 35 masses, 11 pleomorphic clusters of microcalcification, five clustered foci of macrocalcification, and nine lesions with pleomorphic clusters of microcalcification and two with pleomorphic clusters of microcalcification only were included. The CAD system was able to identify 26 masses (74%), eight lesions with pleomorphic clusters of microcalcification (72%), five foci of macrocalcification (100%), six lesions with pleomorphic clusters of microcalcification (66%), and two pleomorphic clusters of microcalcification without formed mass (100%). The overall sensitivity of the CAD system was 75.8%. CAD was able to identify 13 out of 16 masses with invasive ductal carcinoma (81.3%), eight out of nine lesions proven as invasive ductal carcinoma with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (88.9%), two out of five masses with invasive lobular carcinoma (40%), four out of four masses with invasive mammary carcinoma (100%), and zero out of one lesion identified as medullary carcinoma (0%). There was 100% detection for pleomorphic clusters of microcalcification without formed mass with CAD marking two out of two mammograms.

conclusionCAD performed better with combined lesions, accurately marked pleomorphic clusters of microcalcification, and identified small lesions in predominant fibrofatty parenchymal density but was not reliable in dense breast, areas of asymmetric increased density, summation artifacts, edematous breast parenchyma, and retroareolar lesions. It also performed poorly with ill-defined lesions of invasive lobular carcinoma. Human intelligence hence beats CAD for the diagnosis of breast malignancy in mammograms as per our experience.

Indexed as

artificial intelligence and breast cancerbreast cancercomputer-aided detectionscreening mammogramsscreening of breast cancer

Identifiers

PMID37908910
PMCPMC10614479
OpenAlexW4387188563

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.