ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2024
Application of an artificial intelligence-based system in the diagnosis of breast ultrasound images obtained using a smartphone.
Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 2024. 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.
- Clinical Application of Artificial Intelligence in Ultrasound Imaging for Oncology.JMA journal · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast ultrasound (US) is useful for dense breasts, and the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted diagnoses of breast US images should be considered. However, the implementation of AI-based technologies in clinical practice is problematic because of the costs of introducing such approaches to hospital information systems (HISs) and the security risk of connecting HIS to the Internet to access AI services. To solve these problems, we developed a system that applies AI to the analysis of breast US images captured using a smartphone.
methodsTraining data were prepared using 115 images of benign lesions and 201 images of malignant lesions acquired at the Division of Breast Surgery, Gifu University Hospital. YOLOv3 (object detection models) was used to detect lesions on US images. A graphical user interface (GUI) was developed to predict an AI server. A smartphone application was also developed for capturing US images displayed on the HIS monitor with its camera and displaying the prediction results received from the AI server. The sensitivity and specificity of the prediction performed on the AI server and via the smartphone were calculated using 60 images spared from the training.
resultsThe established AI showed 100% sensitivity and 75% specificity for malignant lesions and took 0.2 s per prediction with the AI sever. Prediction using a smartphone required 2 s per prediction and showed 100% sensitivity and 97.5% specificity for malignant lesions.
conclusionsGood-quality predictions were obtained using the AI server. Moreover, the quality of the prediction via the smartphone was slightly better than that on the AI server, which can be safely and inexpensively introduced into HISs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.