ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
Improvement in matching lesions in dual-view mammograms using a geometric model.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of a geometric model (GM) as an adjunctive tool for radiologists to match lesions between craniocaudal (CC) and mediolateral (MLO) views.
methodsA retrospective study was conducted on 711 patients who underwent mammography from January 2016 to August 2018. Two senior radiologists used bounding boxes to delineate lesions as the reference standard, calculated the absolute error (the shortest distance from the lesion center to the predicted curve) of GM, and compared it with the annular band (AB) and straight strip (SS) methods. Four radiologists of varying seniority levels were tasked with localizing the corresponding lesion in MLO view using a bounding box, based on the given lesion in CC views, and recording reading time per case with or without GM assistance. The Dice coefficient was used to evaluate the overlap between the bounding box and the reference standard.
resultsOverall, 499 calcification and 212 mass pairs were evaluated. GM outperformed both AB and SS, yielding a median absolute error of 3.03 mm (IQR 1.45-5.55 mm) versus 5.78 mm (IQR 2.44-10.71 mm) for AB and 4.59 mm (IQR 1.91-8.19 mm) for SS (P < 0.001). With GM assistance, all four radiologists achieved improved Dice coefficients and reduced reading times (all P < 0.001). Stratified analysis by lesion conspicuity demonstrated that GM assistance significantly enhanced Dice coefficients for all radiologists in the low-conspicuity group and improved matching consistency for junior radiologists.
conclusionThe geometric model holds substantial promise as a valuable tool to assist radiologists in more effectively localizing lesions in ipsilateral mammograms, thereby potentially enhancing diagnostic accuracy and efficiency.
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.