ArticleHeliyon2024
Application of computer-aided diagnosis to predict malignancy in BI-RADS 3 breast lesions.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Study of AI Modes in Ultrasound Diagnosis of Breast Lesions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the ability of computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) system (S-Detect) to identify malignancy in ultrasound (US) -detected BI-RADS 3 breast lesions. Materials and methods: 148 patients with 148 breast lesions categorized as BI-RADS 3 were included in the study between January 2021 and September 2022. The malignancy rate, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated. Results: In this study, 143 breast lesions were found to be benign, and 5 breast lesions were malignant (malignancy rate, 3.4 %, 95 % confidence interval (CI): 0.5-6.3). The malignancy rate rose significantly to 18.2 % (4/22, 95 % CI: 2.1-34.3) in the high-risk group with a "possibly malignant" CAD result (p = 0.017). With a "possibly benign" CAD result, the malignancy rate decreased to 0.8 % (1/126, 95 % CI: 0-2.2) in the low-risk group (p = 0.297). The AUC, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, and NPV of the CAD system in BI-RADS 3 breast lesions were 0.837 (95 % CI: 77.7-89.6), 80.0 % (95 % CI: 73.6-86.4), 87.4 % (95 % CI: 82.0-92.7), 87.2 % (95 % CI: 81.8-92.6), 18.2 % (95 % CI: 2.1-34.3) and 99.2 % (95 % CI: 97.8-100.0), respectively. Conclusions: CAD system (S-Detect) enables radiologists to distinguish a high-risk group and a low-risk group among US-detected BI-RADS 3 breast lesions, so that patients in the low-risk group can receive follow-up without anxiety, while those in the high-risk group with a significantly increased malignancy rate should actively receive biopsy to avoid delayed diagnosis of breast cancer.
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.