A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Evaluation of artificial intelligent breast ultrasound on lesion detection and characterization compared with hand-held ultrasound in asymptomatic women. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Introduction: To compare the accuracy of Artificial Intelligent Breast Ultrasound (AIBUS) with hand-held breast ultrasound (HHUS) in asymptomatic women and to offer recommendations for screening in regions with limited medical resources.

Methods: 852 participants who underwent both HHUS and AIBUS were enrolled between December 2020 and June 2021. Two radiologists, who were unaware of the HHUS results, reviewed the AIBUS data and scored the image quality on a separate workstation. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) final recall assessment, breast density category, quantified lesion features, and examination time were evaluated for both devices. The statistical analysis included McNemar's test, paired t-test, and Wilcoxon test. The kappa coefficient and consistency rate were calculated in different subgroups.

Results: Subjective satisfaction with AIBUS image quality reached 70%. Moderate agreements were found between AIBUS with good quality images and HHUS for the BI-RADS final recall assessment ( = 0.47, consistency rate = 73.9%) and breast density category ( = 0.50, consistency rate = 74.8%). The lesions measured by AIBUS were statistically smaller and deeper than those measured by HHUS ( < 0.001), though they were not significant in clinical diagnosis (all < 3 mm). The total time required for the AIBUS examination and image interpretation was 1.03 (95% (0.57, 1.50)) minutes shorter than that of HHUS per case.

Conclusion: Moderate agreement was obtained for the description of the BI-RADS final recall assessment and breast density category. With image quality comparable to that of HHUS, AIBUS was superior for the efficiency of primary screening.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10311017PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1207260DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

breast ultrasound
12
image quality
12
bi-rads final
12
final recall
12
recall assessment
12
breast density
12
density category
12
consistency rate
12
artificial intelligent
8
intelligent breast
8

Similar Publications