ArticleInternational journal of breast cancer2026
Multimodal Imaging of Diabetic Mastopathy: A 62-Case Study With Ultrasound-Based Classification and Diagnostic Accuracy.
Article in International journal of breast cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Multimodal Imaging of Diabetic Mastopathy: A 62-Case Study With Ultrasound-Based Classification and Diagnostic Accuracy.International journal of breast cancer · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to investigate the application of multimodal imaging technology in diagnosing diabetic mastopathy (DM). Methoods: This study retrospectively analyzed ultrasound, mammography, and MRI findings of pathologically confirmed DM from October 2014 to October 2024. Results: Ultrasonography was performed on all 62 patients with DM, identifying a total of 67 lesions. The ultrasound findings were classified into four types: Type I presented as a focal thickening and bulging of the gland with a mix of high and low echoes (42/67, 62.7%); Type II showed focal or overall hypoechoic areas with indistinct margins (19/67, 28.3%); Type III exhibited diffuse hypoechoicity in the lesion area, poorly visualized internal structures, and markedly attenuated posterior echoes (4/67, 6.0%); and Type IV consisted of slightly hypoechoic areas (2/67, 3.0%). The overall diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound was 58.2%. Fifty-one patients with a total of 58 lesions underwent mammography. Eighteen lesions (31.0%) were negative on mammography, whereas 32 lesions (55.2%) displayed asymmetric density. The diagnostic accuracy of mammography was 69%. Five patients with five lesions underwent MRI, which revealed nonmass-like inhomogeneous progressive enhancement, isointensity and hypointensity in T2-weighted images, insignificant or slight hyperintensity in diffusion-weighted imaging, and no significant decrease in apparent diffusion coefficient value, yielding a diagnostic accuracy of 80%. Conclusion: The ultrasound characteristics of DM were marked by nonmass-type lesions with distinctive echogenic and structural features. Mammography demonstrated insignificant or nonspecific asymmetric densities without suspicious calcifications or structural distortions. Breast MRI indicated nonmassive lesions exhibiting benign features based on hemodynamic parameters and diffusion-weighted imaging. The combined application of multimodal imaging enhanced diagnostic accuracy, particularly when incorporated with patient history.
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.