ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2024
Using the GoogLeNet deep-learning model to distinguish between benign and malignant breast masses based on conventional ultrasound: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep learning-assisted diagnosis of pubertal breast development on multicenter ultrasound images.iScience · 2025Article
- Deep learning approach with ConvNeXt-SE-attn model for in vitro oral squamous cell carcinoma and chemotherapy analysis.MethodsX · 2025Article
- Multimodal large language models in ultrasound diagnosis of breast masses: a multicenter comparative analysis based on GPT-4o, radiologists, and convolutional neural network (CNN).Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Breast cancer is one of the most common malignancies in women worldwide, and early and accurate diagnosis is crucial for improving treatment outcomes. Conventional ultrasound (CUS) is a widely used screening method for breast cancer; however, the subjective nature of interpreting the results can lead to diagnostic errors. The current study sought to estimate the effectiveness of using a GoogLeNet deep-learning convolutional neural network (CNN) model to identify benign and malignant breast masses based on CUS. Methods: A literature search was conducted of the Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Wanfang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and other databases to retrieve studies related to GoogLeNet deep-learning CUS-based models published before July 15, 2023. The diagnostic performance of the GoogLeNet models was evaluated using several metrics, including pooled sensitivity (PSEN), pooled specificity (PSPE), the positive likelihood ratio (PLR), the negative likelihood ratio (NLR), the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under the curve (AUC). The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Scale (QUADAS). The eligibility of the included literature were independently searched and assessed by two authors. Results: All of the 12 studies that used pathological findings as the gold standard were included in the meta-analysis. The overall average estimation of sensitivity and specificity was 0.85 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.80-0.89] and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.78-0.92), respectively. The PLR and NLR were 6.2 (95% CI: 3.9-9.9) and 0.17 (95% CI: 0.12-0.23), respectively. The DOR was 37.06 (95% CI: 20.78-66.10). The AUC was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.89-0.94). No obvious publication bias was detected. Conclusions: The GoogLeNet deep-learning model, which uses a CNN, achieved good diagnostic results in distinguishing between benign and malignant breast masses in CUS-based images.
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.