ArticleBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2025
Comparative assessment of breast volume using a smartphone device versus MRI.
Article in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Smartphone-Based 3D Surface Imaging for Breast Anthropometry, Symmetry Assessment, and Volumetry: A Structured Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- The Role of 3-dimensional Imaging and Telemedicine in Breast Augmentation Consultations: A Prospective Cohort Study of 1153 Cases and a Randomized Controlled Trial in Thailand.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Development of a metabolic syndrome prediction model using smartphone-derived digital anthropometry.The British journal of nutrition · 2026Article
- Smartphone-Based 3D Surface Imaging: A New Frontier in Digital Breast Assessment? Smartphone-Based Breast Assessment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Accuracy and Repeatability of Mobile 3D Imaging Applications for Breast Phantom Reconstruction.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAssessment of breast volume has a relevance for aesthetic surgery and for the prevention and prediction of breast diseases. This study investigated breast volume measurements using a three-dimensional (3D) body surface scanner integrated in a smartphone device in comparison with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans.
methodsBreast volume was assessed for 22 women who underwent routine MRI imaging. 3D surface images were acquired using a smartphone's digital texture camera (iPhone 11 Pro Max, Apple, California, USA, 2019). Breast volumes were manually outlined and calculated by two independent investigators using a 3D software tool (Meshmixer 3.5, Autodesk, Inc., 2018). Volume assessments from MRI images were performed by a radiologist using Syngo.via (Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany, VB50). The agreement between both methods and the inter-observer agreement was calculated with the concordance correlation coefficients and analysed with Bland-Altman plots.
resultsThe mean breast volume as determined by MRI volumetry was 771.0 ml on the left side and 763.9 ml on the right side. Utilizing the 3D body surface volume assessment method, the mean breast volume was measured as 660.3 ml (observer A) and 616.8 ml (observer B) on the left side, and 701.9 ml (observer A) and 638.6 ml (observer B) on the right side. Although a high correlation was observed, differences in volume measurements appeared more pronounced in cases of larger breast volume.
conclusionsSmartphone-based 3D assessment of breast volume sufficiently agreed with MRI-based breast volume. This new technique could be used for cosmetic breast assessments in a surgical context and possibly in breast cancer risk studies assessing breast volume as outcome parameters.
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.