Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Type | Description | Link |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-I2M-CT-B-035 | Other Grant/Funding Number | CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences | |
| I-26PJ0568 | Other Identifier | Ethics Committee, Peking Union Medical College Hospital |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences | OTHER |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
This single-center, retrospective, observational study aims to construct a standardized benchmark evaluation system for intelligent breast ultrasound image interpretation and to systematically assess the diagnostic performance of current mainstream multimodal artificial intelligence (AI) models.
De-identified B-mode breast ultrasound images with confirmed pathological diagnoses will be retrospectively collected from the institutional archive (2018-2025) and supplemented with images from published open-access datasets. Expert radiologists with varying experience levels will independently annotate all images according to the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) v2025 criteria, including glandular tissue composition, lesion characterization (mass vs. non-mass lesion), morphological descriptors, and final BI-RADS classification.
Baseline deep learning models (CNN-based ResNet-50 and Transformer-based USFM) will be trained to establish performance baselines and to stratify cases by diagnostic difficulty through cross-architecture consensus. Multiple multimodal large language models (MLLMs), including both general-purpose and medical-domain models, will then be evaluated via standardized API calls using BI-RADS-guided chain-of-thought prompts at temperature 0 for reproducibility.
Primary endpoints include BI-RADS classification accuracy and diagnostic AUC for benign-malignant differentiation. Model robustness and safety will be assessed through out-of-distribution rejection testing, temperature-stability experiments, and thinking-mode ablation studies. This study adheres to the FLAIR and TRIPOD-LLM reporting guidelines.
Background: Breast cancer is the most prevalent malignancy among women worldwide. Ultrasound is a first-line screening modality, particularly in Asian populations with dense breast tissue where mammographic sensitivity is limited. However, ultrasound interpretation is highly operator-dependent, with substantial inter-observer variability in BI-RADS classification, especially for category 4A-4B lesions. Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have emerged as a promising tool for medical image analysis due to their zero-shot diagnostic capability, interpretable chain-of-thought reasoning, and structured report generation. Nevertheless, there is currently no standardized benchmark for evaluating AI performance in breast ultrasound interpretation.
Study Design: Approximately 1,380 breast ultrasound images will be curated (1,200 evaluation set + 150 out-of-distribution safety test set + 30 prompt development set), encompassing three diagnostic categories: normal breast, benign lesions (BI-RADS 2-4B), and malignant lesions (BI-RADS 3-5). Two junior radiologists (<5 years of experience) and two senior radiologists (>15 years) will independently annotate images per ACR BI-RADS v2025 with arbitration by a fifth expert for discordant cases.
Diagnostic difficulty will be stratified into three tiers using cross-architecture deep learning consensus: Tier 1 (straightforward, both models correct), Tier 2 (equivocal, one correct/one incorrect), and Tier 3 (difficult, both incorrect, with senior expert validation). MLLMs will be evaluated across multiple dimensions: classification accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, F1 score, AUC, Cohen's kappa agreement with expert consensus, expected calibration error (ECE), morphological feature description accuracy, and chain-of-thought reasoning quality.
Safety Assessment: (1) Out-of-distribution rejection test using 150 non-diagnostic images (degraded images, non-breast ultrasound, other imaging modalities); (2) Temperature-stability pre-experiment across parameter settings; (3) Thinking-mode ablation comparing standard vs. chain-of-thought reasoning modes. All experiments use fixed model snapshots, system fingerprint monitoring, and complete logging for reproducibility.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Normal Breast | Breast ultrasound images showing normal glandular tissue across different tissue composition types, with no focal lesions identified. Confirmed by senior radiologist review. |
| |
| Benign Lesion | Breast ultrasound images containing pathologically confirmed benign lesions (BI-RADS 2-4B), including fibroadenoma, cyst, lipoma, sclerosing adenosis, intraductal papilloma, and selected non-mass lesions (NML). |
| |
| Malignant Lesion | Breast ultrasound images containing pathologically confirmed malignant lesions (BI-RADS 3-5), including invasive ductal carcinoma, invasive lobular carcinoma, mucinous carcinoma, and selected non-mass lesions (NML). |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal AI Model Diagnostic Evaluation | Diagnostic Test | Retrospective evaluation of de-identified breast ultrasound images by multiple AI systems, including baseline deep learning models (ResNet-50, USFM) and multimodal large language models, using standardized BI-RADS-guided chain-of-thought prompts via API. No patient contact or clinical decision-making is involved. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Diagnostic Accuracy for Pathological Diagnosis | Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and F1 score of AI models for benign-malignant classification, with histopathological diagnosis as the gold standard. | At study completion, approximately 12 months |
| BI-RADS Classification Accuracy | Overall accuracy of AI models in assigning BI-RADS categories (2, 3, 4A, 4B, 4C, 5) to breast ultrasound images, compared with expert consensus annotation as the reference standard. | At study completion, approximately 12 months |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Agreement with Expert Consensus (Cohen's Kappa) | Cohen's kappa coefficient measuring agreement between each AI model's BI-RADS classification and the expert consensus annotation, reported with 95% confidence intervals. | At study completion, approximately 12 months |
| Out-of-Distribution Rejection Rate |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
De-identified breast ultrasound images from adult patients who underwent breast ultrasound examination at Peking Union Medical College Hospital between 2018 and 2025 with subsequent pathological confirmation, supplemented by images from published, ethics-approved, open-access breast ultrasound datasets (e.g., BUSI, BrEaST).
| Name | Role | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qingli Zhu, MD | Contact | +86 13621376699 | zqlpumch@126.com | |
| Yinglan Wu, MD | Contact | +86 15626121076 | wuylan7@gmail.com |
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Qingli Zhu, MD | Peking Union Medical College Hospital | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peking Union Medical College Hospital | Recruiting | Beijing | 100730 | China |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 30720861 | Background | Bi WL, Hosny A, Schabath MB, Giger ML, Birkbak NJ, Mehrtash A, Allison T, Arnaout O, Abbosh C, Dunn IF, Mak RH, Tamimi RM, Tempany CM, Swanton C, Hoffmann U, Schwartz LH, Gillies RJ, Huang RY, Aerts HJWL. Artificial intelligence in cancer imaging: Clinical challenges and applications. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019 Mar;69(2):127-157. doi: 10.3322/caac.21552. Epub 2019 Feb 5. | |
| 37191485 |
Not provided
Not provided
The de-identified benchmark evaluation dataset, including expert-annotated breast ultrasound images with paired BI-RADS reading reports, is planned for public release to promote academic reproducibility and collaborative research.
Within 6 months of primary publication, available indefinitely
Open access via a recognized data repository (to be determined)
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
|
Proportion of non-diagnostic images (degraded quality, non-breast ultrasound, other imaging modalities) correctly identified and refused by AI models, evaluating domain safety. |
| At study completion, approximately 12 months |
| Sensitivity, Specificity, PPV, NPV, and F1 Score | Standard diagnostic performance metrics for benign-malignant classification, reported for each AI model individually. | At study completion, approximately 12 months |
| Background |
| Bhayana R, Krishna S, Bleakney RR. Performance of ChatGPT on a Radiology Board-style Examination: Insights into Current Strengths and Limitations. Radiology. 2023 Jun;307(5):e230582. doi: 10.1148/radiol.230582. Epub 2023 May 16. |
| 37816837 | Background | Clusmann J, Kolbinger FR, Muti HS, Carrero ZI, Eckardt JN, Laleh NG, Loffler CML, Schwarzkopf SC, Unger M, Veldhuizen GP, Wagner SJ, Kather JN. The future landscape of large language models in medicine. Commun Med (Lond). 2023 Oct 10;3(1):141. doi: 10.1038/s43856-023-00370-1. |
| 34893776 | Background | Seyyed-Kalantari L, Zhang H, McDermott MBA, Chen IY, Ghassemi M. Underdiagnosis bias of artificial intelligence algorithms applied to chest radiographs in under-served patient populations. Nat Med. 2021 Dec;27(12):2176-2182. doi: 10.1038/s41591-021-01595-0. Epub 2021 Dec 10. |
| 37045921 | Background | Moor M, Banerjee O, Abad ZSH, Krumholz HM, Leskovec J, Topol EJ, Rajpurkar P. Foundation models for generalist medical artificial intelligence. Nature. 2023 Apr;616(7956):259-265. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05881-4. Epub 2023 Apr 12. |
| 33538338 | Background | Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660. Epub 2021 Feb 4. |
| 37976064 | Background | Benary M, Wang XD, Schmidt M, Soll D, Hilfenhaus G, Nassir M, Sigler C, Knodler M, Keller U, Beule D, Keilholz U, Leser U, Rieke DT. Leveraging Large Language Models for Decision Support in Personalized Oncology. JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Nov 1;6(11):e2343689. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.43689. |
| 40498674 | Background | Miaojiao S, Xia L, Xian Tao Z, Zhi Liang H, Sheng C, Songsong W. Using a Large Language Model for Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Classification and Malignancy Prediction to Enhance Breast Ultrasound Diagnosis: Retrospective Study. JMIR Med Inform. 2025 Jun 11;13:e70924. doi: 10.2196/70924. |
| 38788326 | Background | Jiao J, Zhou J, Li X, Xia M, Huang Y, Huang L, Wang N, Zhang X, Zhou S, Wang Y, Guo Y. USFM: A universal ultrasound foundation model generalized to tasks and organs towards label efficient image analysis. Med Image Anal. 2024 Aug;96:103202. doi: 10.1016/j.media.2024.103202. Epub 2024 May 15. |
| 37795135 | Background | Xiang H, Wang X, Xu M, Zhang Y, Zeng S, Li C, Liu L, Deng T, Tang G, Yan C, Ou J, Lin Q, He J, Sun P, Li A, Chen H, Heng PA, Lin X. Deep Learning-assisted Diagnosis of Breast Lesions on US Images: A Multivendor, Multicenter Study. Radiol Artif Intell. 2023 Jul 12;5(5):e220185. doi: 10.1148/ryai.220185. eCollection 2023 Sep. |
| 38626948 | Background | Collins GS, Moons KGM, Dhiman P, Riley RD, Beam AL, Van Calster B, Ghassemi M, Liu X, Reitsma JB, van Smeden M, Boulesteix AL, Camaradou JC, Celi LA, Denaxas S, Denniston AK, Glocker B, Golub RM, Harvey H, Heinze G, Hoffman MM, Kengne AP, Lam E, Lee N, Loder EW, Maier-Hein L, Mateen BA, McCradden MD, Oakden-Rayner L, Ordish J, Parnell R, Rose S, Singh K, Wynants L, Logullo P. TRIPOD+AI statement: updated guidance for reporting clinical prediction models that use regression or machine learning methods. BMJ. 2024 Apr 16;385:e078378. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2023-078378. |
| 41631991 | Background | Kottlors J, Iuga AI, Bluethgen C, Bressem K, Kather JN, Moy L, Wald C, Wang W, Liu T, Ranschaert E, Dratsch T, Kleesiek J, Gertz RJ, Rajpurkar P, Bedayat A, Fink MA, Zeeck A, Chaudhari A, Alkasab T, Wu H, Nensa F, Wang B, Grosse Hokamp N, Laukamp KR, Persigehl T, Maintz D, Truhn D, Lennartz S. Guidelines for Reporting Studies on Large Language Models in Radiology: An International Delphi Expert Survey. Radiology. 2026 Feb;318(2):e250913. doi: 10.1148/radiol.250913. |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D001943 | Breast Neoplasms |
| D001941 | Breast Diseases |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D009371 | Neoplasms by Site |
| D009369 | Neoplasms |
| D012871 | Skin Diseases |
| D017437 | Skin and Connective Tissue Diseases |
Not provided
Not provided