ArticleScientific reports2024
Accuracy of breast ultrasound image analysis software in feature analysis: a comparative study with sonographers.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Breast ultrasound is recommended for early breast cancer detection in China, but the rapid increase in imaging data burdens sonographers. This study evaluated the agreement between artificial intelligence (AI) software and sonographers in analyzing breast nodule features. Breast ultrasound images from two hospitals in Shanghai were analyzed by both the software and the sonographers for features including echotexture, echo pattern, orientation, shape, margin, calcification, and posterior echo attenuation. Agreement between software and sonographers was compared using the proportion of agreement and Kappa, with analysis time also evaluated. A total of 493 images were analyzed. The proportion of agreement between software and sonographers in assessing features was 80.5% for echotexture, 84.4% for echo pattern, 93.7% for orientation, 85.8% for shape, 88.6% for margin, 80.5% for calcification, and 90.5% for posterior echo attenuation, highlighting software's high accuracy. Cohen's kappa for other features indicated moderate to substantial agreement (0.411-0.674), with calcification showing fair agreement (0.335). The software significantly reduced analysis time compared to sonographers (P < 0.001). The software showed high accuracy and time efficiency. AI software presents a viable solution for reducing sonographers' workload and enhance healthcare in underserved areas by automating feature analysis in breast ultrasound 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.