ArticleJournal of medical ultrasonics (2001)2026
Comparison of breast ultrasound image classification accuracy between convolutional neural networks and human experts using multicenter external validation cohort data.
Article in Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001), 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeIn recent years, much research has been conducted on ultrasound diagnosis of breast tumors using convolutional neural networks (CNNs). While many CNNs for breast tumor classification have been investigated, previous studies have evaluated them using data from the same institution that provided the CNN training data. This may have biased the accuracy of the CNNs. To perform a fairer evaluation, we compared the accuracy of CNNs with that of human experts using a multicenter external validation cohort. Additionally, previous studies used fewer than about 2000 images to train CNNs, whereas this study used 16,530 images.
methodsWe trained a 2-class (benign, malignant) classification CNN and a 4-class (breast cancer, fibroadenoma, simple cyst, and other benign tumors) classification CNN using 16,530 images. Using data from a multicenter external validation cohort, we compared the classification accuracy of the developed CNNs to that of human experts.
resultsThe 2-class classification CNN achieved an accuracy of 88.1%. The benign/malignant classification from the 4-class classification CNN achieved an accuracy of 86.3%. Human experts achieved an accuracy of 83.2%. Thus, the 2-class classification CNN was slightly more accurate than the benign/malignant classification from the 4-class classification CNN. Both developed CNNs were more accurate than human experts.
conclusionThe CNNs developed using a large-scale breast ultrasound image database achieved higher accuracy than that of human experts in evaluation using multicenter external validation cohort data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41886212What 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.