ArticleUltrasonography (Seoul, Korea)2026
Effect of an annotation-free artificial intelligence system for simultaneous detection and diagnosis on breast ultrasonography: a multireader, multicase study across diverse healthcare professionals.
Article in Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea), 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate how a deep learning-based artificial intelligence (AI) system that provides automatic lesion detection and diagnosis affects the diagnostic performance of readers from diverse professional backgrounds.
methodsA total of 1,000 breast ultrasound (US) images (500 malignant, 250 benign, and 250 negative) were independently reviewed by 15 readers (six radiologists, three surgeons, three physicians, and three radiographers) in two sessions: session 1 without AI assistance and session 2 with AI assistance following a 2-week washout period. Reader performance across sessions was compared using the area under the localization receiver operating characteristic curve (AULROC), sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy.
resultsWith AI assistance, the reader-averaged AULROC increased significantly from 0.864 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.831 to 0.898) to 0.910 (95% CI, 0.888 to 0.931) (P=0.002). The standalone AI achieved an AULROC of 0.909 (95% CI, 0.889 to 0.930). Radiographers demonstrated a significant increase in AULROC, from 0.868 (95% CI, 0.840 to 0.897) to 0.922 (95% CI, 0.908 to 0.936) (P=0.032). Across all readers, sensitivity increased from 85.3% to 95.0% and accuracy from 82.3% to 85.7% (both P<0.001). Specificity did not change significantly among radiologists or surgeons (P=0.089 and P=0.955, respectively) but decreased among physicians (82.3% vs. 75.7%, P<0.001) and radiographers (81.7% vs. 76.7%, P<0.001). Radiologists without fellowship training or with <8 years of experience showed significantly improved sensitivity and accuracy, accompanied by decreased specificity after AI assistance (all P<0.05).
conclusionAI assistance significantly increased the average diagnostic performance of readers in breast US interpretation. Among less experienced professionals and radiologists, improvements in sensitivity and accuracy were accompanied by decreased specificity.
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.