Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Diagnostic performance of deep learning in ultrasound diagnosis of breast cancer: a systematic review
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Diagnostic performance of deep learning in ultrasound diagnosis of breast cancer: a systematic review
Do you wish to request the book?
Diagnostic performance of deep learning in ultrasound diagnosis of breast cancer: a systematic review
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Diagnostic performance of deep learning in ultrasound diagnosis of breast cancer: a systematic review
2024
Overview
Deep learning (DL) has been widely investigated in breast ultrasound (US) for distinguishing between benign and malignant breast masses. This systematic review of test diagnosis aims to examine the accuracy of DL, compared to human readers, for the diagnosis of breast cancer in the US under clinical settings. Our literature search included records from databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. Test accuracy outcomes were synthesized to compare the diagnostic performance of DL and human readers as well as to evaluate the assistive role of DL to human readers. A total of 16 studies involving 9238 female participants were included. There were no prospective studies comparing the test accuracy of DL versus human readers in clinical workflows. Diagnostic test results varied across the included studies. In 14 studies employing standalone DL systems, DL showed significantly lower sensitivities in 5 studies with comparable specificities and outperformed human readers at higher specificities in another 4 studies; in the remaining studies, DL models and human readers showed equivalent test outcomes. In 12 studies that assessed assistive DL systems, no studies proved the assistive role of DL in the overall diagnostic performance of human readers. Current evidence is insufficient to conclude that DL outperforms human readers or enhances the accuracy of diagnostic breast US in a clinical setting. Standardization of study methodologies is required to improve the reproducibility and generalizability of DL research, which will aid in clinical translation and application.
Publisher
Nature Publishing Group UK,Nature Publishing Group,Nature Portfolio
