Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 299

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Electromagnetic Breast Imaging: Results of a Pilot Study in Women with Abnormal Mammograms

Poplack, Steven P., Tosteson, Tor D., Wells, Wendy A., Pogue, Brian W., Meaney, Paul M., Hartov, Alexander, Kogel, Christine A., Soho, Sandra K., Gibson, Jennifer J., Paulsen, Keith D.·2007·Radiology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To prospectively assess quantitatively the inherent contrast of electromagnetic (EM) properties that can be imaged by using available technology in women with abnormal findings at conventional breast imaging who underwent subsequent biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The protocol was HIPAA compliant and approved by the institutional review board. All participants provided informed consent. Fifty-three women with normal (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] category 1) and ninety-seven women with abnormal (BI-RADS category 4 or 5) screening mammograms were imaged with three EM imaging methods: electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS), microwave imaging spectroscopy (MIS), and near-infrared spectral tomography (NIR). A region-of-interest (ROI) analysis was used to assess the EM image properties for comparison of findings with conventional image findings and correlation with specific pathologic parameters for women with abnormal findings. Statistical analyses were conducted. RESULTS: One hundred fifty participants (age range, 35-81 years) were included. EM image property contrast ratios of 150%-200% were found in breast abnormality ROIs relative to the ipsilateral breast background. Analysis of variance demonstrated significant differences in ROI image summaries of mammographically normal versus abnormal breasts for EIS, across diagnostic groups for NIR, and for MIS (analysis restricted to lesions larger than 1 cm(3)). Receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis of the EM properties for cancers among subjects with BI-RADS category 4 or 5, compared with the EM properties for the subjects with normal breasts (BI-RADS category 1), yielded areas under the ROC curve ranging from 0.67 to 0.81. Pathologic correlations with mean vessel density, mean vessel area, and epithelium-to-stroma ratio suggest a biological origin of the EM image properties associated with disease. CONCLUSION: Results from EM breast examinations provide statistical evidence of a mean increase in image contrast of 150%-200% between abnormal (benign and malignant) and normal breast tissue.

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 · 10.1148/radiol.2432060286

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 26 references

Cited by

See all 299

Metadata

Authors
Poplack, S. P., Tosteson, T. D., Wells, W. A., Pogue, B. W., Meaney, P. M., Hartov, A., Kogel, C. A., Soho, S. K., Gibson, J. J., & Paulsen, K. D.
Venue
Radiology
Published
2007-05
Volume
243
Issue
2
Pages
350-359
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2124702218
Cited by
299
References
26
FWCI
15.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Electromagnetic Breast Imaging: Results of a Pilot Study in Women with Abnormal Mammograms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2432060286
The paper
Poplack, S. P., Tosteson, T. D., Wells, W. A., Pogue, B. W., Meaney, P. M., Hartov, A., Kogel, C. A., Soho, S. K., Gibson, J. J., & Paulsen, K. D. (2007). Electromagnetic Breast Imaging: Results of a Pilot Study in Women with Abnormal Mammograms. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2432060286

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.