ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2025
Effectiveness of AI-CAD Software for Breast Cancer Detection in Automated Breast Ultrasound.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To assess the diagnostic performance and clinical usefulness of deep learning-based computer-aided detection (AI-CAD) for automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) across radiologists with varying ABUS experience. This retrospective study included 114 women (228 breasts) who underwent ABUS in 2019. Three radiologists interpreted images with and without AI-CAD. We evaluated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), accuracy, and area under the curve (AUC), reading time and interobserver agreement in Breast Imaging Reporting & Data System (BI-RADS) categorization and biopsy recommendations. Among 114 women (50.9 ± 10.8 years), 28 were diagnosed with breast cancer. The following performance metrics improved significant with AI-CAD: Reader 1 (least experienced of ABUS; 2 years of ABUS experience), AUC, 0.837 to 0.947 (p = 0.009), and NPV, 95.8% to 98.4% (p = 0.022); Reader 2 (7 years of experience), PPV, 50.0% to 59.5% (p = 0.042); Reader 3 (8 years of experience), PPV, 55.6% to 66.7% (p = 0.034). Reader 1 with AI-CAD achieved a performance comparable or higher than those of more experienced readers without AI. Specifically: compared with Reader 2, specificity (93.5% vs. 88.0%), PPV (65.8% vs. 50.0%), and accuracy (93.0% vs. 87.7%) were higher. Although Reader 3 originally demonstrated higher NPV (98.4% vs. 95.8%) and AUC (0.954 vs. 0.837) without CAD, these differences were no longer significant when Reader 1 used AI-CAD. Across all readers, AI-CAD reduced the mean reading time by an average of 25 s (p < 0.001). Inter-observer agreement after AI-CAD use (BI-RADS κ: 0.279 → 0.363; biopsy recommendation κ: 0.666 → 0.736) showed no statistically significant difference. AI-CAD enhanced diagnostic performance and reading efficiency in ABUS interpretation, demonstrating the most pronounced improvement for the less experienced reader.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41429948What 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.