↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic value of the stand-alone synthetic image in digital breast tomosynthesis examinations

Overview of attention for article published in European Radiology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Diagnostic value of the stand-alone synthetic image in digital breast tomosynthesis examinations
Published in
European Radiology, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00330-017-4991-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julia Garayoa, Margarita Chevalier, Maria Castillo, Ignacio Mahillo-Fernández, Najim Amallal El Ouahabi, Carmen Estrada, Alejandro Tejerina, Olivia Benitez, Julio Valverde

Abstract

To demonstrate the non-inferiority of synthetic image (SI) mammography versus full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in breast tomosynthesis (DBT) examinations. An observational, retrospective, single-centre, multireader blinded study was performed, using 2384 images to directly compare SI and FFDM based on Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) categorisation and visibility of radiological findings. Readers had no access to digital breast tomosynthesis slices. Multiple reader, multiple case (MRMC) receiver operating characteristic (ROC) methodology was used to compare the diagnostic performance of SI and FFDM images. The kappa statistic was used to estimate the inter-reader and intra-reader reliability. The area under the ROC curves (AUC) reveals the non-inferiority of SI versus FFDM based on BIRADS categorisation [difference between AUC (ΔAUC), -0.014] and lesion visibility (ΔAUC, -0.001) but the differences were not statistically significant (p=0.282 for BIRADS; p=0.961 for lesion visibility). On average, 77.4% of malignant lesions were detected with SI versus 76.5% with FFDM. Sensitivity and specificity of SI are superior to FFDM for malignant lesions scored as BIRADS 5 and breasts categorised as BIRADS 1. SI is not inferior to FFDM when DBT slices are not available during image reading. SI can replace FFDM, reducing the dose by 45%. • Stand-alone SI demonstrated performance not inferior for lesion visibility as compared to FFDM. • Stand-alone SI demonstrated performance not inferior for lesion BIRADS categorisation as compared to FFDM. • Synthetic images provide important dose savings in breast tomosynthesis examinations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 29%
Other 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Student > Master 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 9 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 16%
Engineering 5 16%
Physics and Astronomy 2 6%
Chemistry 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 11 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2018.
All research outputs
#5,157,126
of 25,183,822 outputs
Outputs from European Radiology
#665
of 4,890 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,794
of 322,224 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Radiology
#11
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,183,822 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,890 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 322,224 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.