Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 406

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Shear wave elastography for breast masses is highly reproducible

Open access
the BE1 Study Group, Cosgrove, David O., Berg, Wendie A., Doré, Caroline J, Skyba, Danny M., Henry, Jean-Pierre, Gay, Joel, Cohen-Bacrie, Claude·2012·European Radiology

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate intra- and interobserver reproducibility of shear wave elastography (SWE) for breast masses. METHODS: For intraobserver reproducibility, each observer obtained three consecutive SWE images of 758 masses that were visible on ultrasound. 144 (19%) were malignant. Weighted kappa was used to assess the agreement of qualitative elastographic features; the reliability of quantitative measurements was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). For the interobserver reproducibility, a blinded observer reviewed images and agreement on features was determined. RESULTS: Mean age was 50 years; mean mass size was 13 mm. Qualitatively, SWE images were at least reasonably similar for 666/758 (87.9%). Intraclass correlation for SWE diameter, area and perimeter was almost perfect (ICC ≥ 0.94). Intraobserver reliability for maximum and mean elasticity was almost perfect (ICC = 0.84 and 0.87) and was substantial for the ratio of mass-to-fat elasticity (ICC = 0.77). Interobserver agreement was moderate for SWE homogeneity (κ = 0.57), substantial for qualitative colour assessment of maximum elasticity (κ = 0.66), fair for SWE shape (κ = 0.40), fair for B-mode mass margins (κ = 0.38), and moderate for B-mode mass shape (κ = 0.58), orientation (κ = 0.53) and BI-RADS assessment (κ = 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: SWE is highly reproducible for assessing elastographic features of breast masses within and across observers. SWE interpretation is at least as consistent as that of BI-RADS ultrasound B-mode features. KEY POINTS: • Shear wave ultrasound elastography can measure the stiffness of breast tissue • It provides a qualitatively and quantitatively interpretable colour-coded map of tissue stiffness • Intraobserver reproducibility of SWE is almost perfect while intraobserver reproducibility of SWE proved to be moderate to substantial • The most reproducible SWE features between observers were SWE image homogeneity and maximum elasticity.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00330-011-2340-y

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 406

Metadata

Authors
the BE1 Study Group, Cosgrove, D. O., Berg, W. A., Doré, C. J., Skyba, D. M., Henry, J.-P., Gay, J., & Cohen-Bacrie, C.
Venue
European Radiology
Published
2011-12-31
Volume
22
Issue
5
Pages
1023-1032
ISSN
  • 0938-7994 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1084
OpenAlex
W2070897578
Cited by
406
References
0
FWCI
20.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Shear wave elastography for breast masses is highly reproducible. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s00330-011-2340-y
The paper
the BE1 Study Group, Cosgrove, D. O., Berg, W. A., Doré, C. J., Skyba, D. M., Henry, J.-P., Gay, J., & Cohen-Bacrie, C. (2012). Shear wave elastography for breast masses is highly reproducible. European Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2340-y

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.