Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38223033›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2024

Comparison of artificial intelligence, elastic imaging, and the thyroid imaging reporting and data system in the differential diagnosis of suspicious nodules.

Peng Cong, Xue-Mei Wang, Yun-Fei Zhang

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Peng CongDepartment of Ultrasound, The First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Xue-Mei WangDepartment of Ultrasound, The First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Yun-Fei ZhangDepartment of Ultrasound, The First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
First Hospital of China Medical University · CNChina Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Ultrasound is widely used for detecting thyroid nodules in clinical practice. This retrospective study aimed to assess the diagnostic efficacy of the American College of Radiology Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (ACR-TIRADS), S-Detect, and elastography of the carotid artery for suspicious thyroid nodules and to determine the complementary value of artificial intelligence and elastography. Methods: Between January 2021 and November 2021, 101 consecutive patients with 138 thyroid nodules were enrolled in The First Hospital of China Medical University. All nodules were evaluated using ACR-TIRADS categories (TR), S-Detect, and elastography, and then the diagnostic performance of the different methods and the combined assessment were compared. The inclusion criteria were the following: (I) TR3, TR4, and TR5 nodules, which were defined as "suspicious nodules"; (II) patients who had surgical or cytopathological results after ultrasound examination; and (III) voluntary enrollment in this study. Meanwhile, the exclusion criteria were the following: (I) TR1 and TR2 nodules, (II) patients who had undergone fine-needle aspiration before ultrasound examination, and (III) inconclusive cytologic findings. Results: A total of 71 patients (12 men and 59 women) with 94 suspicious thyroid nodules (42 benign nodules and 52 malignant nodules) were finally included in this study. S-Detect had a significantly better sensitivity than did ACR-TIRADS [S-Detect: 98.1%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 89.7-100.0%; ACR-TIRADS: 84.6%, 95% CI: 71.9-93.1%; P=0.036], but its specificity was much lower (S-Detect: 19.0%; 95% CI: 8.6-34.1%; ACR-TIRADS: 40.5%, 95% CI: 25.6-56.7%; P=0.032). The accuracy was not significantly different between S-Detect (62.8%; 95% CI: 52.2-72.5%) and ACR-TIRADS (64.9%; 95% CI: 54.4-74.5%) (P=0.761). The elasticity contrast index (ECI) was not definitively useful in identifying suspicious thyroid nodules (P=0.592). Compared with the use of ACR-TIRADS and S-Detect alone, the specificity (45.2%; 95% CI: 29.8-61.3%), positive predictive value (65.2%; 95% CI: 52.4-76.5%), accuracy (66.0%; 95% CI: 55.5-75.4%), and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.640; 95% CI: 0.534-0.736) of their combination were higher but not significantly so. Conclusions: At present, S-Detect cannot replace manual diagnosis, and the value of elastography of the carotid artery in diagnosing suspected thyroid nodules remains unclear.

Indexed as

artificial intelligence (AI)elastographyThyroid noduleultrasonography

Identifiers

PMID38223033
PMCPMC10784040
OpenAlexW4390428710

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.