ArticleJPRAS open2025
Three-dimensional breast imaging using Artificial-Intelligence-Based Automatic Measurement System.
Article in JPRAS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Breast Reconstruction: A Scoping Review of Pre-, Intra-, and Postoperative Applications.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Three-dimensional (3D) image technology in breast measurement requires exploration. We aimed to evaluate a new automatic breast measurement system based on artificial intelligence (AI). Methods: This prospective controlled study included all-women patients who underwent breast reconstruction from January to May 2022. Patients underwent 3D scanning before breast reconstruction. Two doctors performed the measurements twice through AI and manual measurements on the 3D images, respectively. The measurement results of bilateral breast width, convexity, height, volume, and measurement time were recorded. Consistency analyses were performed. Results: Fifty-eight patients (116 breasts) were recruited. For the left breasts, AI and manual measurements showed excellent consistency (intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) = 0.81) in width measurements, moderate consistency (ICC = 0.59) in height measurements, excellent consistency (ICC = 0.87) in convexity measurements, and good consistency (ICC = 0.74) in volume measurements. For the right breasts, the width consistency was excellent (ICC = 0.93), height consistency was good (ICC = 0.65), convexity consistency was excellent (ICC = 0.94), and volume consistency was excellent (ICC = 0.85). The Bland-Altman curves also showed that the measurement results were comparable and few outliers were detected. AI average measurement time (compared to manual measurements) was significantly shorter (40.65 ± 1.51 s vs. 610.47 ± 18.74 s; p < 0.001). Conclusion: The AI-based 3D breast measurement system showed high accuracy, better reproducibility, and significantly shortened the measurement time, which could help guide surgical management.
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.