ArticleBMC medical imaging2026
Diagnostic value of ultrasound peritumoral viscoelasticity parameters in breast cancer: enhancing BI-RADS classification performance.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesAims to access the diagnostic performance of different regions ultrasound viscoelasticity parameters especially margin of breast cancer and to determine whether the use of margin viscoelasticity can improve its accuracy in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). MATERIALS &
methods234 benign and 90 malignant lesions were subjected to standard breast ultrasound and viscoelasticity examinations. The doctors selected region of interest (ROI) to measure viscoelasticity. ROI-1, ROI-2, and ROI-3 represent the tumor, peritumoral, and peripheral areas, respectively. The viscosity modulus (VMean, VMin, VMax, VSD) and elasticity modulus (EMean, EMin, EMax, ESD) of 3 ROIs were analyzed. The diagnostic performance of viscoelasticity of three regions was assessed by receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC). Comparison of the effectiveness of B-Mode ultrasound and viscoelastic parameters in BI-RADS diagnosis of breast cancer based on true positive (TP) and false negative (FN).
resultsThe optimal viscoelasticity-related parameters for differentiating breast lesions were determined to be 2-EMax and 2-VMax, with area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.84 (0.79–0.90) and 0.85 (0.80–0.90), respectively. Using ≥ 30.4 kPa and ≥ 3.3 Pa·s as cutoff values, the BI-RADS classification was then modified. The joint model improves diagnoses of benign lesions in category 4 (69/73). In the same way, 2-EMin + 2-VMin can improve the diagnosis rate of benign lesions (227/234). Viscoelastic parameters have better diagnostic performance than viscosity and elasticity alone.
conclusionUltrasound quantitative viscoelasticity parameters of breast mass especially lesion margin can show more comprehensive information. Viscoelasticity improves diagnostic accuracy of BI-RADS categories and reduces unnecessary biopsies.
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.