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.
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.
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.
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
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- AI performance varies considerably across mammography devices: a multi-site and multi-vendor retrospective study.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.