ReviewCureus2023
Radiomics to Differentiate Malignant and Benign Breast Lesions: A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Test Accuracy Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Artificial Intelligence Performance in Image-Based Cancer Identification: Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- The potential of MRI radiomics based on extrapulmonary metastases in predicting EGFR mutations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Biomedical engineering online · 2025Pooled it
- Interpretable Whole-Breast Radiomic Biomarkers for Exploratory Assessment of HER2 + Breast Cancer in Digital Mammography.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- AI-powered radiomics for detecting rare pituitary stalk interruption with growth hormone-insulin-like factor desynchrony.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Discrimination of benign and malignant non-mass breast lesions using ultrasound radiomics with machine learning models.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Radiomics-integrated machine learning framework for quantitative breast cancer diagnosis.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Radiomics-based Machine Learning Models for Classifying Breast Cancer on Dynamic-Contrast Enhanced MRI through Multi-Observer AnalysisCurrent medical imaging · 2026Article
- Transforming Breast Imaging: A Narrative Review of Systematic Evidence on Artificial Intelligence in Mammographic Practice.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Quantitative Ultrasound Texture Analysis of Breast Tumors: A Comparison of a Cart-Based and a Wireless Ultrasound Scanner.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
- Robust radiomics: a review of guidelines for radiomics in medical imaging.Frontiers in radiology · 2025Review
- Diagnostic dilemma of lobular carcinoma: a mini-review of imaging modalities and the role of artificial intelligence and radiomics.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Radiomics in radiology: What the radiologist needs to know about technical aspects and clinical impact.La Radiologia medica · 2024Review
- Use of artificial intelligence in breast surgery: a narrative review.Gland surgery · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Breast cancer is a prevalent global health concern, necessitating accurate diagnostic tools for effective management. Diagnostic imaging plays a pivotal role in breast cancer diagnosis, staging, treatment planning, and outcome evaluation. Radiomics is an emerging field of study in medical imaging that contains a broad set of computational methods to extract quantitative features from radiographic images. This can be utilized to guide diagnosis, treatment response, and prognosis in clinical settings. A systematic review was performed in concordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy. Quality was assessed using the radiomics quality score. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of radiomics analysis, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were included for meta-analysis. The area under the curve analysis was recorded. An extensive statistical analysis was performed following the Cochrane guidelines. Statistical significance was determined if p-values were less than 0.05. Statistical analyses were conducted using Review Manager (RevMan), Version 5.4.1. A total of 31 manuscripts involving 8,773 patients were included, with 17 contributing to the meta-analysis. The cohort comprised 56.2% malignant breast cancers and 43.8% benign breast lesions. MRI demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.89-0.92) and a specificity of 0.84 (95% CI: 0.82-0.86) in differentiating between benign and malignant breast cancers. Mammography-based radiomic features predicted breast cancer subtype with a sensitivity of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.76-0.82) and a specificity of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.79-0.84). Ultrasound-based analysis yielded a sensitivity of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.90-0.94) and a specificity of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.83-0.88). Only one study reported the results of radiomic evaluation from CT, which had a sensitivity of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.88-0.99) and a specificity of 0.56 (95% CI: 0.45-0.67). Across different imaging modalities, radiomics exhibited robust diagnostic accuracy in differentiating benign and malignant breast lesions. The results underscore the potential of radiomic assessment as a minimally invasive alternative or adjunctive diagnostic tool for breast cancer. This is pioneering data that reports on a novel diagnostic approach that is understudied and underreported. However, due to study limitations, the complexity of this technology, and the need for future development, biopsy still remains the current gold standard method of determining breast cancer type.
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.