Marisa Wodrich, Freja Sahlin, Jennie Karlsson, Ida Arvidsson, Kristina Lång
{"title":"Exploring artificial intelligence in point-of-care and standard breast ultrasound: a paired reader study.","authors":"Marisa Wodrich, Freja Sahlin, Jennie Karlsson, Ida Arvidsson, Kristina Lång","doi":"10.1177/02841851261454509","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundBreast cancer diagnoses are limited in low- and middle-income settings due to lack of medical resources. In these settings, point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) combined with artificial intelligence (AI)-based interpretation could be a suitable approach.PurposeTo compare the performance of an AI-based breast cancer classification algorithm with radiologists and assess whether POCUS performs comparably to standard breast ultrasound (BUS) as a stand-alone imaging technique.Material and MethodsA total of 70 POCUS and 70 case-matched BUS images (11 malignant, 21 benign, 38 normal) from 40 women (mean age=50.3 ± 16.65) were interpreted by four breast radiologists in a multi-reader, multi-case setup. Readers rated risk of malignancy on single images on a 5-point scale similar to BI-RADS (≥3 considered positive, i.e. malignant). An in-house-developed AI-based algorithm also analyzed the images. The breast cancer detection performance for all modalities was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity.ResultsOn BUS, AI and radiologists performed comparably (AUC=0.98 [95% confidence interval (CI)=0.93-1.00] vs. 0.97 [95% CI=0.93-1.00]; sensitivity 1.00 vs. 1.00; specificity 0.75 vs. 0.78). The performance was similar on POCUS, for both AI and radiologists (AUC 0.99 [95% CI=0.98-1.00] vs. 0.99 [95% CI=0.96-1.00]; sensitivity 1.00 vs. 1.00; specificity 0.92 vs. 0.77). No statistically significant differences were observed between BUS and POCUS or radiologists and AI.ConclusionThis study demonstrates the potential of reliable AI-based breast cancer detection, both in standard ultrasound imaging and in POCUS imaging.</p>","PeriodicalId":7143,"journal":{"name":"Acta radiologica","volume":" ","pages":"653-662"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta radiologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02841851261454509","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
BackgroundBreast cancer diagnoses are limited in low- and middle-income settings due to lack of medical resources. In these settings, point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) combined with artificial intelligence (AI)-based interpretation could be a suitable approach.PurposeTo compare the performance of an AI-based breast cancer classification algorithm with radiologists and assess whether POCUS performs comparably to standard breast ultrasound (BUS) as a stand-alone imaging technique.Material and MethodsA total of 70 POCUS and 70 case-matched BUS images (11 malignant, 21 benign, 38 normal) from 40 women (mean age=50.3 ± 16.65) were interpreted by four breast radiologists in a multi-reader, multi-case setup. Readers rated risk of malignancy on single images on a 5-point scale similar to BI-RADS (≥3 considered positive, i.e. malignant). An in-house-developed AI-based algorithm also analyzed the images. The breast cancer detection performance for all modalities was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity.ResultsOn BUS, AI and radiologists performed comparably (AUC=0.98 [95% confidence interval (CI)=0.93-1.00] vs. 0.97 [95% CI=0.93-1.00]; sensitivity 1.00 vs. 1.00; specificity 0.75 vs. 0.78). The performance was similar on POCUS, for both AI and radiologists (AUC 0.99 [95% CI=0.98-1.00] vs. 0.99 [95% CI=0.96-1.00]; sensitivity 1.00 vs. 1.00; specificity 0.92 vs. 0.77). No statistically significant differences were observed between BUS and POCUS or radiologists and AI.ConclusionThis study demonstrates the potential of reliable AI-based breast cancer detection, both in standard ultrasound imaging and in POCUS imaging.
由于缺乏医疗资源,乳腺癌诊断在低收入和中等收入环境中受到限制。在这些情况下,即时超声(POCUS)与基于人工智能(AI)的解释相结合可能是一种合适的方法。目的比较基于人工智能的乳腺癌分类算法与放射科医生的表现,并评估POCUS作为独立成像技术是否与标准乳腺超声(BUS)相媲美。材料与方法对40例平均年龄50.3±16.65岁女性的70张POCUS和70张BUS图像(11张恶性,21张良性,38张正常)进行多病例解读,由4名乳腺放射科医生进行解读。读者按照与BI-RADS类似的5分制对单幅图像的恶性风险进行评分(≥3被认为是阳性,即恶性)。内部开发的基于人工智能的算法也分析了这些图像。使用受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUC)、灵敏度和特异性评估所有方式的乳腺癌检测性能。结果BUS、AI和放射科医师的预后相当(AUC=0.98[95%可信区间(CI)=0.93-1.00] vs. 0.97 [95% CI=0.93-1.00];灵敏度1.00 vs. 1.00;特异性0.75 vs. 0.78)。人工智能和放射科医生的POCUS表现相似(AUC 0.99 [95% CI=0.98-1.00] vs. 0.99 [95% CI=0.96-1.00];敏感性1.00 vs. 1.00;特异性0.92 vs. 0.77)。BUS与POCUS或放射科医师与AI之间无统计学差异。结论本研究证明了人工智能在标准超声成像和POCUS成像中可靠的乳腺癌检测潜力。
期刊介绍:
Acta Radiologica publishes articles on all aspects of radiology, from clinical radiology to experimental work. It is known for articles based on experimental work and contrast media research, giving priority to scientific original papers. The distinguished international editorial board also invite review articles, short communications and technical and instrumental notes.