Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30226841›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Detection of masses in mammograms using a one-stage object detector based on a deep convolutional neural network.

Hwejin Jung, Bumsoo Kim, Inyeop Lee, Minhwan Yoo, Junhyun Lee, Sooyoun Ham, Okhee Woo, Jaewoo Kang

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Hwejin JungDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-5886-7836
Bumsoo KimDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Inyeop LeeDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Minhwan YooDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Junhyun LeeDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Sooyoun HamDepartment of Radiology, Kangbuk Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-5333-9839
Okhee WooDepartment of Radiology, Korea University Guro Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jaewoo KangDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several computer aided diagnosis (CAD) systems have been developed for mammography. They are widely used in certain countries such as the U.S. where mammography studies are conducted more frequently; however, they are not yet globally employed for clinical use due to their inconsistent performance, which can be attributed to their reliance on hand-crafted features. It is difficult to use hand-crafted features for mammogram images that vary due to factors such as the breast density of patients and differences in imaging devices. To address these problems, several studies have leveraged a deep convolutional neural network that does not require hand-crafted features. Among the recent object detectors, RetinaNet is particularly promising as it is a simpler one-stage object detector that is fast and efficient while achieving state-of-the-art performance. RetinaNet has been proven to perform conventional object detection tasks but has not been tested on detecting masses in mammograms. Thus, we propose a mass detection model based on RetinaNet. To validate its performance in diverse use cases, we construct several experimental setups using the public dataset INbreast and the in-house dataset GURO. In addition to training and testing on the same dataset (i.e., training and testing on INbreast), we evaluate our mass detection model in setups using additional training data (i.e., training on INbreast + GURO and testing on INbreast). We also evaluate our model in setups using pre-trained weights (i.e., using weights pre-trained on GURO, training and testing on INbreast). In all the experiments, our mass detection model achieves comparable or better performance than more complex state-of-the-art models including the two-stage object detector. Also, the results show that using the weights pre-trained on datasets achieves similar performance as directly using datasets in the training phase. Therefore, we make our mass detection model's weights pre-trained on both GURO and INbreast publicly available. We expect that researchers who train RetinaNet on their in-house dataset for the mass detection task can use our pre-trained weights to leverage the features extracted from the datasets.

Indexed as

Neural Networks, ComputerBreast NeoplasmsDatabases, FactualDecision Support TechniquesDeep LearningDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedFemaleHumansMammographyRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted

Identifiers

PMID30226841
PMCPMC6143189

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.