ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Diagnostic accuracy of an artificial intelligence-based breast ultrasound tool in pregnant and lactating patients.
Article in European radiology, 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
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the diagnostic performance of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based decision support tool for breast ultrasound in pregnant and lactating patients and compare BI-RADS assessments with radiologist interpretation. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included consecutive pregnant or lactating patients presenting with breast complaints at two academic medical centers from 2018-2021. Eligible patients underwent ultrasound with one or more findings assessed as BI-RADS category 2-5 and had biopsy or at least two years of follow-up. Examinations were analyzed using an AI-based decision support tool and compared with radiologist interpretations using the reference standard. Diagnostic performance was compared using McNemar's test.
resultsA total of 504 women (mean age, 33 years; range, 19-45) with 639 breast ultrasound findings were included. Five findings (0.8%) were malignant, and 634 (99.2%) were benign. Both radiologists and the AI tool classified four malignancies as BI-RADS 4 or 5 and one as BI-RADS 3, yielding a sensitivity of 80.0% (4/5). Among benign lesions, the AI tool recommended more biopsies than radiologists (37.1% vs 21.0%, p < 0.001). After excluding galactoceles, fluid collections, and skin lesions, biopsy recommendation rates were similar (27.4% vs 23.8%, p = 0.18). The AI tool categorized more benign lesions as BI-RADS 2 (53.1% vs 32.9%, p < 0.001) and fewer as BI-RADS 3 (19.5% vs 43.3%, p < 0.001).
conclusionIn pregnant and lactating patients, an AI-based decision support tool demonstrated sensitivity comparable to that of radiologists. After excluding lesions outside the AI tool's intended use, the AI tool assigned more BI-RADS 2 and fewer BI-RADS 3 assessments. KEY POINTS: Question Can an AI-based decision support tool for breast ultrasound perform comparably to radiologists in pregnant and lactating patients? Findings The AI tool demonstrated sensitivity comparable to radiologists and categorized fewer lesions as BI-RADS 3; biopsy rates were similar after excluding lesions outside intended use. Clinical relevance AI-based decision support for breast ultrasound may reduce unnecessary follow-up imaging in pregnant and lactating patients after excluding lesions outside the AI tool's intended use, while demonstrating sensitivity comparable to radiologists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42268305What 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.