Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39883137›Full record

ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2025

The impact of updated imaging software on the performance of machine learning models for breast cancer diagnosis: a multi-center, retrospective study.

Lie Cai, Michael Golatta, Chris Sidey-Gibbons, Richard G Barr, André Pfob

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02638935 (Evaluation of Virtual Touch Tissue Imaging Quantification), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT02638935 nacompletednot on this map

Evaluation of Virtual Touch Tissue Imaging Quantification (VTIQ - 2D-SWE) in the Assessment of BI-RADS® 3 and 4 Lesions: Can Patient Selection for Biopsy be Improved? - A Confirmatory Multi-Center-Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorHeidelberg UniversityRan2016 to 2019Enrolled1,304ConditionsBreast NeoplasmsArmsUltrasound- Virtual Touch Tissue Imaging Quantification
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Lie CaiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Breast Cancer Center, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 440, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Michael GolattaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Breast Cancer Center, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 440, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Chris Sidey-GibbonsMD Anderson Center for INSPiRED Cancer Care (Integrated Systems for Patient-Reported Data), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Richard G BarrDepartment of Radiology, Northeast Ohio Medical University, Ravenna, OH, USA.
André PfobDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Breast Cancer Center, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 440, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. Andre.pfob@med.uni-heidelberg.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeArtificial Intelligence models based on medical (imaging) data are increasingly developed. However, the imaging software on which the original data is generated is frequently updated. The impact of updated imaging software on the performance of AI models is unclear. We aimed to develop machine learning models using shear wave elastography (SWE) data to identify malignant breast lesions and to test the models' generalizability by validating them on external data generated by both the original updated software versions.

methodsWe developed and validated different machine learning models (GLM, MARS, XGBoost, SVM) using multicenter, international SWE data (NCT02638935) using tenfold cross-validation. Findings were compared to the histopathologic evaluation of the biopsy specimen or 2-year follow-up. The outcome measure was the area under the curve (AUROC).

resultsWe included 1288 cases in the development set using the original imaging software and 385 cases in the validation set using both, original and updated software. In the external validation set, the GLM and XGBoost models showed better performance with the updated software data compared to the original software data (AUROC 0.941 vs. 0.902, p < 0.001 and 0.934 vs. 0.872, p < 0.001). The MARS model showed worse performance with the updated software data (0.847 vs. 0.894, p = 0.045). SVM was not calibrated.

conclusionIn this multicenter study using SWE data, some machine learning models demonstrated great potential to bridge the gap between original software and updated software, whereas others exhibited weak generalizability.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsElasticity Imaging TechniquesMachine LearningSoftwareAdultAgedFemaleHumansMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesBreastMachine learningMedical imagingShear wave elastography

Identifiers

PMID39883137
PMCPMC12176987

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.