ArticleTechnology in cancer research & treatment
Evaluating Diagnostic Strategies for Thyroid Nodule Assessment Using S-Detect in Transverse and Longitudinal Ultrasound Planes.
Article in Technology in cancer research & treatment. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
IntroductionThe influence of ultrasound imaging plane on the diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis systems for thyroid nodules remains unclear. This study evaluated S-Detect in transverse and longitudinal ultrasound planes and compared four plane-based interpretation strategies.MethodsThis prospective cross-sectional study included 157 patients with 207 surgically confirmed thyroid nodules. Each nodule was independently analyzed by S-Detect in transverse (S-Detect_T) and longitudinal (S-Detect_L) planes. Four diagnostic strategies were evaluated: transverse-plane assessment, longitudinal-plane assessment, a serial strategy classifying a nodule as possibly malignant only when both planes indicated possible malignancy, and a parallel strategy classifying a nodule as possibly malignant when either plane indicated possible malignancy. Diagnostic performance, agreement, and interplane discordance were assessed.ResultsOf the 207 nodules, 140 were malignant and 67 were benign. S-Detect_L showed numerically higher sensitivity and specificity than S-Detect_T (93.6% vs 92.1% and 62.7% vs 59.7%, respectively), but neither difference was statistically significant. Transverse- and longitudinal-plane classifications agreed in 89.4% of nodules, whereas 10.6% showed interplane discordance. The parallel strategy achieved the highest sensitivity (97.9%) and negative predictive value (92.5%) but the lowest specificity (55.2%). The serial strategy achieved the highest specificity (67.2%) and the lowest false-positive rate (32.8%) but had lower sensitivity (87.9%). Compared with the serial strategy, the parallel strategy identified 14 additional malignant nodules while producing eight additional false-positive classifications. A sensitivity analysis restricted to one nodule per patient showed the same overall pattern.ConclusionsTransverse- and longitudinal-plane S-Detect assessments showed similar diagnostic performance, although interplane discordance occurred in a subset of nodules. The parallel strategy favored sensitivity, whereas the serial strategy favored specificity and fewer false-positive classifications. No imaging plane or combination rule was consistently superior across all diagnostic measures.
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.