Skip to content

Construction of a Benchmark for Breast Ultrasound AI Interpretation and Performance Evaluation of Multimodal AI Models

Construction of a Standardized Benchmark Evaluation System for Intelligent Breast Ultrasound Image Interpretation and Systematic Performance Assessment of Multimodal Artificial Intelligence Models Based on ACR BI-RADS v2025 Criteria

Status
Recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT07500428
Acronym
BUST-AI Bench
Enrollment
1380
Registered
2026-03-30
Start date
2026-03-12
Completion date
2027-03-01
Last updated
2026-03-30

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Breast Diseases, Breast Neoplasms, Ultrasonography

Keywords

Breast Ultrasound, BI-RADS, Artificial Intelligence, Multimodal Large Language Model, Benchmark, Computer-Aided Diagnosis

Brief summary

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.

Detailed description

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.

Interventions

DIAGNOSTIC_TESTMultimodal AI Model Diagnostic Evaluation

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.

Sponsors

Peking Union Medical College Hospital
Lead SponsorOTHER
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences
CollaboratorOTHER

Study design

Observational model
COHORT
Time perspective
RETROSPECTIVE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
FEMALE
Age
18 Years to 75 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* B-mode breast ultrasound grayscale images from the institutional PACS database or from published open-access breast ultrasound datasets with documented original institutional ethics approval * Image quality adequate for clinical diagnosis with clear visualization of the region of interest * Pathological diagnosis confirmed (for benign and malignant lesion groups), or normal breast status confirmed by a senior radiologist with \>15 years of breast ultrasound experience (for the normal group) * Complete de-identification with removal of all personally identifiable information

Exclusion criteria

* Severely degraded image quality precluding meaningful BI-RADS assessment * Duplicate images from the same patient (only the most representative image retained per lesion) * Images with residual personally identifiable information after de-identification processing * Cases with ambiguous, disputed, or unavailable pathological results * Non-B-mode ultrasound images, including elastography, contrast-enhanced ultrasound, and Doppler imaging

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Diagnostic Accuracy for Pathological DiagnosisAt study completion, approximately 12 monthsSensitivity, 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.
BI-RADS Classification AccuracyAt study completion, approximately 12 monthsOverall 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.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Agreement with Expert Consensus (Cohen's Kappa)At study completion, approximately 12 monthsCohen's kappa coefficient measuring agreement between each AI model's BI-RADS classification and the expert consensus annotation, reported with 95% confidence intervals.
Out-of-Distribution Rejection RateAt study completion, approximately 12 monthsProportion of non-diagnostic images (degraded quality, non-breast ultrasound, other imaging modalities) correctly identified and refused by AI models, evaluating domain safety.
Sensitivity, Specificity, PPV, NPV, and F1 ScoreAt study completion, approximately 12 monthsStandard diagnostic performance metrics for benign-malignant classification, reported for each AI model individually.

Countries

China

Contacts

CONTACTQingli Zhu, MD
zqlpumch@126.com+86 13621376699
CONTACTYinglan Wu, MD
wuylan7@gmail.com+86 15626121076
PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORQingli Zhu, MD

Peking Union Medical College Hospital

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 31, 2026