The Potential of Adding Mammography to Handheld Ultrasound or Automated Breast Ultrasound to Reduce Unnecessary Biopsies in BI-RADS Ultrasound Category 4a: A Multicenter Hospital-Based Study in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The appropriate management strategies for BI-RADS category 4a lesions among handheld ultrasound (HHUS) remain a matter of debate. We aimed to explore the role of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) or the second-look mammography (MAM) adjunct to ultrasound (US) of 4a masses to reduce unnecessary biopsies. Women aged 30 to 69 underwent HHUS and ABUS from 2016 to 2017 at five high-level hospitals in China, with those aged 40 or older also accepting MAM. Logistic regression analysis assessed image variables correlated with false-positive lesions in US category 4a. Unnecessary biopsies, invasive cancer (IC) yields, and diagnostic performance among different biopsy thresholds were compared. A total of 1946 women (44.9 ± 9.8 years) were eligible for analysis. The false-positive rate of category 4a in ABUS was almost 65.81% (77/117), which was similar to HHUS (67.55%; 127/188). Orientation, architectural distortion, and duct change were independent factors associated with the false-positive lesions in 4a of HHUS, whereas postmenopausal, calcification, and architectural distortion were significant features of ABUS (all p < 0.05). For HHUS, both unnecessary biopsy rate and IC yields were significantly reduced when changing biopsy thresholds by adding MAM for US 4a in the total population (scenario #1:BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5; scenario #2: BI-RADS 4 and 5) compared with the current scenario (all p < 0.05). Notably, scenario #1 reduced false-positive biopsies without affecting IC yields when compared to the current scenario for ABUS (p < 0.001; p = 0.125). The higher unnecessary biopsy rate of category 4a by ABUS was similar to HHUS. However, the second-look MAM adjunct to ABUS has the potential to safely reduce false-positive biopsies compared with HHUS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".