ReviewFrontiers in oncology2026
Ultrasound-based artificial intelligence for breast lesion classification.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ultrasound features and clinicopathologic correlations of breast adenoid cystic carcinoma: a retrospective observational study.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
- AI-mediated ultrasound radiomics in the diagnosis and treatment of triple-negative breast cancer: research progress and future challenges.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
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
Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer among women. Early and accurate screening is crucial for improving patient outcomes. Ultrasound is a valuable diagnostic tool, particularly for dense breasts, yet its efficacy can be limited by operator dependency and interpretive variability. Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown significant potential to enhance the accuracy and efficiency of breast ultrasound. However, translating AI from research to clinical practice remains challenging due to several persistent gaps: the lack of robust clinical validation for generative AI in image enhancement; insufficient focus on AI for diagnosing non-mass lesions, which constitute a notable proportion of malignancies; and limited multi-center effectiveness data for commercial computer-aided diagnosis systems. This narrative review synthesizes recent advancements in AI for breast ultrasound and provides a critical, multifaceted analysis that integrates technological evolution, clinical-translation challenges, and implementation frameworks. Importantly, it highlights pervasive methodological limitations, such as small sample sizes, retrospective single-center designs, and inadequate external validation, that often lead to overestimation of real-world AI performance. By offering both actionable insights and a cautionary perspective, this review aims to guide the rigorous, evidence-based translation of AI into clinically viable tools.
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.