Diagnostic performance of ultrasound S-Detect technology in evaluating BI-RADS-4 breast nodules ≤ 20 mm and > 20 mm.

Boyuan Xing, Chen Gu, Chenghui Fu, Bingyi Zhang, Yandi Tan

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

Enhancing diagnostic precision for BI-RADS 4a breast nodules: A multimodal AI model integrating ultrasound radiomics, hemodynamic signatures, and clinical profiles.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026
Article

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Boyuan XingDepartment of Ultrasound, The First College of Clinical Medical Science, Yichang Central People's Hospital, China Three Gorges University, Yichang, China.

Chen GuDepartment of Ultrasound, The First College of Clinical Medical Science, Yichang Central People's Hospital, China Three Gorges University, Yichang, China.

Chenghui FuDepartment of Ultrasound, The First College of Clinical Medical Science, Yichang Central People's Hospital, China Three Gorges University, Yichang, China.

Bingyi ZhangDepartment of Ultrasound, The First College of Clinical Medical Science, Yichang Central People's Hospital, China Three Gorges University, Yichang, China.

Yandi TanDepartment of Medical Ultrasound, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. YandiTan123@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aimed to explore the diagnostic performance of ultrasound S-Detect in differentiating Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4 breast nodules ≤ 20 mm and > 20 mm.

methodsBetween November 2020 and November 2022, a total of 382 breast nodules in 312 patients were classified as BI-RADS-4 by conventional ultrasound. Using pathology results as the gold standard, we applied receiver operator characteristics (ROC), sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), accuracy (ACC), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) to analyze the diagnostic value of BI-RADS, S-Detect, and the two techniques in combination (Co-Detect) in the diagnosis of BI-RADS 4 breast nodules ≤ 20 mm and > 20 mm.

resultsThere were 382 BI-RADS-4 nodules, of which 151 were pathologically confirmed as malignant, and 231 as benign. In lesions ≤ 20 mm, the SE, SP, ACC, PPV, NPV, and area under the curve (AUC) of the BI-RADS group were 77.27%, 89.73%, 85.71%, 78.16%, 89.24%, 0.835, respectively. SE, SP, ACC, PPV, NPV, and AUC of the S-Detect group were 92.05%, 78.92%, 83.15%, 67.50%, 95.43%, 0.855, respectively. SE, SP, ACC, PPV, NPV, and AUC of the Co-Detect group were 89.77%, 93.51%, 92.31%, 86.81%, 95.05%, 0.916, respectively. The differences of SE, ACC, NPV, and AUC between the BI-RADS group and the Co-Detect group were statistically significant (P < 0.05). In lesions > 20 mm, SE, SP, ACC, PPV, NPV, and AUC of the BI-RADS group were 88.99%, 89.13%, 88.99%, 91.80%, 85.42%, 0.890, respectively. SE, SP, ACC, PPV, NPV, and AUC of the S-Detect group were 98.41%, 69.57%, 86.24%, 81.58%, 96.97%, 0.840, respectively. SE, SP, ACC, PPV, NPV, and AUC of the Co-Detect group were 98.41%, 91.30%, 95.41%, 93.94%, 97.67%, 0.949, respectively. A total of 166 BI-RADS 4 A nodules were downgraded to category 3 by Co-Detect, with 160 (96.4%) confirmed as benign and 6 (all ≤ 20 mm) as false negatives. Conversely, 25 nodules were upgraded to 4B, of which 19 (76.0%) were malignant. The difference in AUC between the BI-RADS group and the Co-Detect group was statistically significant (P < 0.05).

conclusionsS-Detect combined with BI-RADS is effective in the differential diagnosis of BI-RADS 4 breast nodules ≤ 20 mm and > 20 mm. However, its performance is particularly pronounced in lesions ≤ 20 mm, where it contributes to a significant reduction in unnecessary biopsies.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsUltrasonography, MammaryAdultAgedBreastDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsRetrospective StudiesROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificityArtificial intelligenceBreast imaging reporting and data systemBreast massS-DetectUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID40797236

DOI10.1186/s12885-025-14760-2

PMCPMC12341267

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY-NC-ND

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.