ArticleLa Radiologia medica2025
Artificial intelligence-based tumor size measurement on mammography: agreement with pathology and comparison with human readers' assessments across multiple imaging modalities.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the agreement between artificial intelligence (AI)-based tumor size measurements of breast cancer and the final pathology and compare these results with those of other imaging modalities. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis retrospective study included 925 women (mean age, 55.3 years ± 11.6) with 936 breast cancers, who underwent digital mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging before breast cancer surgery. AI-based tumor size measurement was performed on post-processed mammographic images, outlining areas with AI abnormality scores of 10, 50, and 90%. Absolute agreement between AI-based tumor sizes, image modalities, and histopathology was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis. Concordant and discordant cases between AI measurements and histopathologic examinations were compared.
resultsTumor size with an abnormality score of 50% showed the highest agreement with histopathologic examination (ICC = 0.54, 95% confidential interval [CI]: 0.49-0.59), showing comparable agreement with mammography (ICC = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.48-0.60, p = 0.40). For ductal carcinoma in situ and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive cancers, AI revealed a higher agreement than that of mammography (ICC = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.67-0.84 and ICC = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.52-0.85). Overall, 52.0% (487/936) of cases were discordant, with these cases more commonly observed in younger patients with dense breasts, multifocal malignancies, lower abnormality scores, and different imaging characteristics.
conclusionAI-based tumor size measurements with abnormality scores of 50% showed moderate agreement with histopathology but demonstrated size discordance in more than half of the cases. While comparable to mammography, its limitations emphasize the need for further refinement and research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40540124What 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.