Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30944574›Full record

ArticleComputational and mathematical methods in medicine2019

Breast Microcalcification Diagnosis Using Deep Convolutional Neural Network from Digital Mammograms.

Hongmin Cai, Qinjian Huang, Wentao Rong, Yan Song, Jiao Li, Jinhua Wang, Jiazhou Chen, Li Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computational and mathematical methods in medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
–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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Can AI Reduce the Harms of Screening Mammography?Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2023
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. A Focus on the Synergy of Radiomics and RNA Sequencing in Breast Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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.

Hongmin CaiSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510000, China.ORCID 0000-0002-2747-7234
Qinjian HuangSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510000, China.
Wentao RongSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510000, China.
Yan SongSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510000, China.
Jiao LiSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510060, China.
Jinhua WangMedical Imaging Center, Shenzhen Hospital of Southern Medical University, Shenzhen, Guangdong 518101, China.
Jiazhou ChenSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510000, China.
Li LiMedical Imaging Center, Shenzhen Hospital of Southern Medical University, Shenzhen, Guangdong 518101, China.ORCID 0000-0002-4712-2692

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mammography is successfully used as an effective screening tool for cancer diagnosis. A calcification cluster on mammography is a primary sign of cancer. Early researches have proved the diagnostic value of the calcification, yet their performance is highly dependent on handcrafted image descriptors. Characterizing the calcification mammography in an automatic and robust way remains a challenge. In this paper, the calcification was characterized by descriptors obtained from deep learning and handcrafted descriptors. We compared the performances of different image feature sets on digital mammograms. The feature sets included the deep features alone, the handcrafted features, their combination, and the filtered deep features. Experimental results have demonstrated that the deep features outperform handcrafted features, but the handcrafted features can provide complementary information for deep features. We achieved a classification precision of 89.32% and sensitivity of 86.89% using the filtered deep features, which is the best performance among all the feature sets.

Indexed as

Neural Networks, ComputerAdultAgedAlgorithmsBiopsyBreastBreast NeoplasmsCalcinosisDeep LearningEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMammographyMiddle AgedPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID30944574
PMCPMC6421727

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.