Background and aim: Breast cancer remains the most common malignancy and the leading cause of cancer-related death among women globally, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Early and accurate diagnosis is critical to improving survival outcomes. This study compares the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography and mammography in detecting breast carcinoma, using histopathology as the gold standard. Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted in a radiology department at a tertiary care hospital, including 240 female patients presenting with clinically palpable breast lesions. Each participant underwent both mammography and ultrasonography prior to biopsy. Data collection included lesion characteristics, imaging findings, and histopathological results. Diagnostic performance was evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and overall accuracy. Results: Ultrasound demonstrated a consistent diagnostic accuracy of 86.3% in both breasts, with high NPVs (≥95.7%) and good sensitivity in dense tissue. Mammography showed variability between sides: accuracy was 81.7% on the right and 94.6% on the left, with left-sided sensitivity reaching 100%. Ultrasound was more effective in identifying hyperechoic lesions and smooth margins, while mammography was superior in detecting calcifications and architectural distortions. Statistical testing confirmed significant associations ( P < 0.001) for all modality comparisons with histopathology. Conclusion: This study highlights the complementary diagnostic value of ultrasonography and mammography in the evaluation of breast carcinoma. Ultrasound demonstrated consistent diagnostic accuracy and strong NPV, making it particularly valuable in premenopausal women and those with dense breast tissue. Mammography, on the other hand, showed superiority in detecting microcalcifications and subtle architectural distortions, underscoring its indispensable role in identifying ductal carcinoma in situ and early-stage malignancies.

Objectives: The objective of magnetisation transfer imaging (MTI) is to quantitatively assess myelin integrity in the cervical spinal cord (CSC) using MRI technology. The magnetisation transfer ratio (MTR) has been extensively studied as a prospective biomarker for identifying microstructural alterations in both healthy and diseased tissue. This systematic review aims to assess the repeatability and reproducibility of MTI-derived MTR studies in human CSC. Methods: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify studies evaluating the reliability of MTI, specifically MTR. Studies that met the criteria presented statistical metrics including intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), coefficient of variation (CV%), or Bland–Altman (BA) analysis. Only peer-reviewed articles in English were included. The review adhered to PRISMA 2020 guidelines, and methodological quality was evaluated using the Quality Assessment with Diverse Studies (QuADS) tool. Results: Thirty studies were identified; following screening, six studies satisfied the inclusion requirements. These investigations assessed the reliability and reproducibility of MTR in both healthy individuals and patients with cervical myelopathy throughout spinal levels C1–C7. The ICC values exhibited considerable variability, spanning from poor agreement to about 0.90%, depending on the region of interest. The CV% values varied from 1.3% to 6.1% in non-healthy populations and from 0.5% to 12.7% in healthy groups. The BA analysis indicated no systematic bias, characterised by relatively minimal mean differences. A quantitative meta-analysis was not conducted due to methodological differences in each study. QuADS ratings demonstrated moderate to high methodological quality (77–96%). Conclusions: MTR exhibits generally low ICC values over different ROIs in most of the included studies and high to medium reproducibility for the evaluation of CSC. Nonetheless, diversity in acquisition procedures, statistical reporting and ROI selection continues to be a significant limitation of our study for not reporting the meta-analysis.