ArticleRadiologia brasileira
Application of artificial intelligence in predicting malignancy risk in breast masses on ultrasound.
Article in Radiologia brasileira. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy of an artificial intelligence-based breast ultrasound tool in pregnant and lactating patients.European radiology · 2026Article
- Article
- Artificial intelligence-enhanced handheld breast ultrasound for screening: A systematic review of diagnostic test accuracy.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Radiogenomic Landscape of Metastatic Endocrine-Positive Breast Cancer Resistant to Aromatase Inhibitors.Cancers · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence in breast imaging.Radiologia brasileiraArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the results obtained with an artificial intelligence-based software for predicting the risk of malignancy in breast masses from ultrasound images. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective, single-center study evaluating 555 breast masses submitted to percutaneous biopsy at a cancer referral center. Ultrasonographic findings were classified in accordance with the BI-RADS lexicon. The images were analyzed by using Koios DS Breast software and classified as benign, probably benign, low to intermediate suspicion, high suspicion, or probably malignant. The histological classification was considered the reference standard. Results: The mean age of the patients was 51 years, and the mean mass size was 16 mm. The radiologist evaluation had a sensitivity and specificity of 99.1% and 34.0%, respectively, compared with 98.2% and 39.0%, respectively, for the software evaluation. The positive predictive value for malignancy for the BI-RADS categories was similar between the radiologist and software evaluations. Two false-negative results were identified in the radiologist evaluation, the masses in question being classified as suspicious by the software, whereas four false-negative results were identified in the software evaluation, the masses in question being classified as suspicious by the radiologist. Conclusion: In our sample, the performance of artificial intelligence-based software was comparable to that of a radiologist.
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.