MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393043512 · doi:10.1007/s00330-024-10690-y

The diagnostic performance of ultrafast MRI to differentiate benign from malignant breast lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4393043512 on OpenAlexaff
Yoav Amitai, Vivianne Freitas, Orit Golan, Rivka Kessner, Tamar Shalmon, Rina Neeman, Michal Mauda‐Havakuk, Diego Mercer, Miri Sklair‐Levy, Tehillah S. Menes

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Radiology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMRI in cancer diagnosis
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemWomen's College HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersTel Aviv University
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisBreast MRINeuroradiologyMagnetic resonance imagingDiagnostic odds ratioRadiologyReceiver operating characteristicBreast cancerBreast imagingPublication biasNuclear medicineMammographyInternal medicineCancerNeurology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic performance of ultrafast magnetic resonance imaging (UF-DCE MRI) in differentiating benign from malignant breast lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted until September 1, 2023, in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Clinical studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of UF-DCE MRI in breast lesion stratification were screened and included in the meta-analysis. Pooled summary estimates for sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and hierarchic summary operating characteristics (SROC) curves were pooled under the random-effects model. Publication bias and heterogeneity between studies were calculated. RESULTS: A final set of 16 studies analyzing 2090 lesions met the inclusion criteria and were incorporated into the meta-analysis. Using UF-DCE MRI kinetic parameters, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, and area under the curve (AUC) for differentiating benign from malignant breast lesions were 83% (95% CI 79-88%), 77% (95% CI 72-83%), 18.9 (95% CI 13.7-26.2), and 0.876 (95% CI 0.83-0.887), respectively. We found no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between the two main UF-DCE MRI kinetic parameters, maximum slope (MS) and time to enhancement (TTE). DOR and SROC exhibited low heterogeneity across the included studies. No evidence of publication bias was identified (p = 0.585). CONCLUSIONS: UF-DCE MRI as a stand-alone technique has high accuracy in discriminating benign from malignant breast lesions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: UF-DCE MRI has the potential to obtain kinetic information and stratify breast lesions accurately while decreasing scan times, which may offer significant benefit to patients. KEY POINTS: • Ultrafast breast MRI is a novel technique which captures kinetic information with very high temporal resolution. • The kinetic parameters of ultrafast breast MRI demonstrate a high level of accuracy in distinguishing between benign and malignant breast lesions. • There is no significant difference in accuracy between maximum slope and time to enhancement kinetic parameters.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.686
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean RadiologySame topicMRI in cancer diagnosisFrench-language works237,207