Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(2)
Exact(1)
This data extraction took 1 2 min per lesion.
Similar(59)
Considering detection of all malignant and benign lesions, 5 min-per-view MBI had lower sensitivity (mean of 70% vs. 85% (p ≤ 0.04) for two readers) and lower area under curve (AUC) (mean of 92.7 vs. 99.6, p ≤ 0.01) but had similar specificity (p = 1.0).
MBI performed at 5 min-per-view demonstrated decreased sensitivity for lesion detection, similar specificity, and decreased AUC compared to standard 10-min-per-view MBI.
Eleven of the 15 (73%) test-negative lesions on 5 min-per-view or 5-min-per-view WBR acquisitions received a final assessment of 3 (probably benign) by either one or both readers, indicating that the lesion was observed but not given a test positive assessment of 4 or 5 that would lead to recommendation of biopsy.
Of all 15 lesions with downgraded assessments at 5 min-per-view, 12 of 15 (80%) were categorized as mild intensity lesions and the other 3 of 15 (20%) were moderate intensity.
All lesions downgraded at 5 min-per-view (Table 3) were in patients with photopenic or mild background uptake.
Note: in one additional patient, a benign lesion was considered undetected at 10 min-per-view (assessment = 3) but was detected at 5 min-per-view and 5 min-per-view with WBR (assessment of 4) by reader 1.
aFinal assessment is given for lesions detected by either reader on 10-min-per-view acquisitions but not detected by at least one reader on 5 min-per-view or 5-min-per-view WBR acquisitions.
Considering detection of all 49 malignant and benign lesions, sensitivity was significantly lower for 5-min-per-view studies compared to 10-min-per-view for both readers; specificity was nearly unchanged.
Of lesions that were test positive on 10 min-per-view, but test negative at 5 min-per-view (Table 3), only one was in a low count density study.
In 15 patients, a lesion that was detected (assessment 4 or 5) on 10-min-per-view MBI by either reader was given a test negative assessment of 1 to 3 on the 5 min-per-view or 5-min-per-view WBR study by either one or both readers (Table 3).
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com