PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: To compare the medical image interpretation\'s time between the conventional and automated methods of breast ultrasound in patients with breast lesions. Secondarily, to evaluate the agreement between the two methods and interobservers.
UNASSIGNED: This is a cross-sectional study with prospective data collection. The agreement\'s degrees were established in relation to the breast lesions\'s ultrasound descriptors. To determine the accuracy of each method, a biopsy of suspicious lesions was performed, considering the histopathological result as the diagnostic gold standard.
UNASSIGNED: We evaluated 27 women. Conventional ultrasound used an average medical time of 10.77 minutes (± 2.55) greater than the average of 7.38 minutes (± 2.06) for automated ultrasound (p<0.001). The degrees of agreement between the methods ranged from 0.75 to 0.95 for researcher 1 and from 0.71 to 0.98 for researcher 2. Among the researchers, the degrees of agreement were between 0.63 and 1 for automated ultrasound and between 0.68 and 1 for conventional ultrasound. The area of the ROC curve for the conventional method was 0.67 (p=0.003) for researcher 1 and 0.72 (p<0.001) for researcher 2. The area of the ROC curve for the automated method was 0. 69 (p=0.001) for researcher 1 and 0.78 (p<0.001) for researcher 2.
UNASSIGNED: We observed less time devoted by the physician to automated ultrasound compared to conventional ultrasound, maintaining accuracy. There was substantial or strong to perfect interobserver agreement and substantial or strong to almost perfect agreement between the methods.
UNASSIGNED: This is a cross-sectional study with prospective data collection. The agreement\'s degrees were established in relation to the breast lesions\'s ultrasound descriptors. To determine the accuracy of each method, a biopsy of suspicious lesions was performed, considering the histopathological result as the diagnostic gold standard.
UNASSIGNED: We evaluated 27 women. Conventional ultrasound used an average medical time of 10.77 minutes (± 2.55) greater than the average of 7.38 minutes (± 2.06) for automated ultrasound (p<0.001). The degrees of agreement between the methods ranged from 0.75 to 0.95 for researcher 1 and from 0.71 to 0.98 for researcher 2. Among the researchers, the degrees of agreement were between 0.63 and 1 for automated ultrasound and between 0.68 and 1 for conventional ultrasound. The area of the ROC curve for the conventional method was 0.67 (p=0.003) for researcher 1 and 0.72 (p<0.001) for researcher 2. The area of the ROC curve for the automated method was 0. 69 (p=0.001) for researcher 1 and 0.78 (p<0.001) for researcher 2.
UNASSIGNED: We observed less time devoted by the physician to automated ultrasound compared to conventional ultrasound, maintaining accuracy. There was substantial or strong to perfect interobserver agreement and substantial or strong to almost perfect agreement between the methods.
摘要：
■比较乳腺病变患者的常规和自动乳腺超声检查方法之间的医学图像解释时间。其次，评估两种方法和观察者之间的一致性。
■这是一项具有前瞻性数据收集的横断面研究。与乳腺病变的超声描述符相关的一致性程度。为了确定每种方法的准确性，对可疑病变进行了活检，考虑组织病理学结果作为诊断金标准。
■我们评估了27名女性。常规超声使用的平均医疗时间为10.77分钟（±2.55），大于自动超声的平均医疗时间为7.38分钟（±2.06）（p<0.001）。研究人员1的方法之间的一致程度为0.75至0.95，研究人员2的方法之间的一致程度为0.71至0.98。在研究人员中，自动超声的一致度为0.63~1,常规超声的一致度为0.68~1.研究人员1的常规方法的ROC曲线面积为0.67（p=0.003），研究人员2的ROC曲线面积为0.72（p<0.001）。自动化方法的ROC曲线面积为0。研究人员1为69(p=0.001)，研究人员2为0.78(p<0.001)。
■我们观察到，与常规超声相比，医生用于自动超声的时间更少，保持准确性。两种方法之间存在实质性或强到完美的观察者间协议，以及实质性或强到几乎完美的协议。
■这是一项具有前瞻性数据收集的横断面研究。与乳腺病变的超声描述符相关的一致性程度。为了确定每种方法的准确性，对可疑病变进行了活检，考虑组织病理学结果作为诊断金标准。
■我们评估了27名女性。常规超声使用的平均医疗时间为10.77分钟（±2.55），大于自动超声的平均医疗时间为7.38分钟（±2.06）（p<0.001）。研究人员1的方法之间的一致程度为0.75至0.95，研究人员2的方法之间的一致程度为0.71至0.98。在研究人员中，自动超声的一致度为0.63~1,常规超声的一致度为0.68~1.研究人员1的常规方法的ROC曲线面积为0.67（p=0.003），研究人员2的ROC曲线面积为0.72（p<0.001）。自动化方法的ROC曲线面积为0。研究人员1为69(p=0.001)，研究人员2为0.78(p<0.001)。
■我们观察到，与常规超声相比，医生用于自动超声的时间更少，保持准确性。两种方法之间存在实质性或强到完美的观察者间协议，以及实质性或强到几乎完美的协议。
