ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2025
Implementation of an automated breast ultrasound system in an academic radiology department: Lesson learned in the first three years.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Semiautomated breast ultrasound report generation using multimodal large language models and deep learning.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of AI-CAD Software for Breast Cancer Detection in Automated Breast Ultrasound.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
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
Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of an ABUS in an academic radiology department over the first three years after its implementation. Methods: In this retrospective study women undergoing ABUS examination for screening and diagnostic purposes between October 2015-2018 were included in case of sufficient follow-up and established diagnosis. Women underwent ABUS + /- mammography in the same day. BI-RADS 1/ 2 cases with cancer diagnosis during follow-up and already visible in the previous exam were considered false negative (FN). BI-RADS 3/4 cases proved benign were considered false positive (FP). FP and number of additional targeted HHUS (addHHUS) were compared over the three years. Results: 1248 women (51.2 ± 11.2 years) were included: 956 (77.3 %) underwent ABUS+mammography; 283 (29.3 %) ABUS only. Mean follow-up ± SD was 53.5 ± 17.8 month. Thirty-three malignancies were present in the investigated exams. In 28/ 33 cases (84.8 %), lesions were classified BI-RADS 4 or 5 and one (3.6 %) lesion was only visible in ABUS. 3/33 malignancies (9 %) were classified BI-RADS 3. 2/33 (6 %) were visible in mammography and ABUS but not recognized and classified BI-RADS 2 (FN rate 6.1 %). Retrospectively, both cases had "retraction phenomenon sign" in the coronal images. BI-RADS 3 and BI-RADS 4 without a malignancy were attributed to 172 (13.8 %) and 14 (1.1 %) cases, respectively corresponding to a FP rate of 15.3 %. The number of FP as well as the number of addHHUS significantly reduced over the three years (both p < 0.001). Conclusions: After the implementation of an ABUS FP cases and addHHUS reduce over the time.
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.