ArticleEuropean radiology2024
Use of a commercial artificial intelligence-based mammography analysis software for improving breast ultrasound interpretations.
Article in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the use of a commercial artificial intelligence (AI)-based mammography analysis software for improving the interpretations of breast ultrasound (US)-detected lesions.
methodsA retrospective analysis was performed on 1109 breasts that underwent both mammography and US-guided breast biopsy. The AI software processed mammograms and provided an AI score ranging from 0 to 100 for each breast, indicating the likelihood of malignancy. The performance of the AI score in differentiating mammograms with benign outcomes from those revealing cancers following US-guided breast biopsy was evaluated. In addition, prediction models for benign outcomes were constructed based on clinical and imaging characteristics with and without AI scores, using logistic regression analysis.
resultsThe AI software had an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.79-0.82) in differentiating between benign and cancer cases. The prediction models that did not include AI scores (non-AI model), only used AI scores (AI-only model), and included AI scores (integrated model) had AUROCs of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.75-0.83), 0.78 (95% CI, 0.74-0.82), and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.81-0.88) in the development cohort, and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.68-0.81), 0.82 (95% CI, 0.76-0.88), and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79-0.90) in the validation cohort, respectively. The integrated model outperformed the non-AI model in the development and validation cohorts (p < 0.001 for both).
conclusionThe commercial AI-based mammography analysis software could be a valuable adjunct to clinical decision-making for managing US-detected breast lesions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The commercial AI-based mammography analysis software could potentially reduce unnecessary biopsies and improve patient outcomes. KEY POINTS: • Breast US has high rates of false-positive interpretations. • A commercial AI-based mammography analysis software could distinguish mammograms having benign outcomes from those revealing cancers after US-guided breast biopsy. • A commercial AI-based mammography analysis software may improve interpretations for breast US-detected lesions.
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.