Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31167642›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2019

Deep convolutional neural networks for mammography: advances, challenges and applications.

Dina Abdelhafiz, Clifford Yang, Reda Ammar, Sheida Nabavi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed
19.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

68 citing papers in PubMed, 265 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Clinician-driven automated data preprocessing in nuclear medicine AI environments.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Dina AbdelhafizDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Connecticut, Storrs, 06269, CT, USA. dina.abdelhafiz@uconn.edu.
Clifford YangDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, 06030, CT, USA.
Reda AmmarDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Connecticut, Storrs, 06269, CT, USA.
Sheida NabaviDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Connecticut, Storrs, 06269, CT, USA.
University of Connecticut · USUConn Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe limitations of traditional computer-aided detection (CAD) systems for mammography, the extreme importance of early detection of breast cancer and the high impact of the false diagnosis of patients drive researchers to investigate deep learning (DL) methods for mammograms (MGs). Recent breakthroughs in DL, in particular, convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have achieved remarkable advances in the medical fields. Specifically, CNNs are used in mammography for lesion localization and detection, risk assessment, image retrieval, and classification tasks. CNNs also help radiologists providing more accurate diagnosis by delivering precise quantitative analysis of suspicious lesions.

resultsIn this survey, we conducted a detailed review of the strengths, limitations, and performance of the most recent CNNs applications in analyzing MG images. It summarizes 83 research studies for applying CNNs on various tasks in mammography. It focuses on finding the best practices used in these research studies to improve the diagnosis accuracy. This survey also provides a deep insight into the architecture of CNNs used for various tasks. Furthermore, it describes the most common publicly available MG repositories and highlights their main features and strengths.

conclusionsThe mammography research community can utilize this survey as a basis for their current and future studies. The given comparison among common publicly available MG repositories guides the community to select the most appropriate database for their application(s). Moreover, this survey lists the best practices that improve the performance of CNNs including the pre-processing of images and the use of multi-view images. In addition, other listed techniques like transfer learning (TL), data augmentation, batch normalization, and dropout are appealing solutions to reduce overfitting and increase the generalization of the CNN models. Finally, this survey identifies the research challenges and directions that require further investigations by the community.

Indexed as

Deep LearningNeural Networks, ComputerBreast NeoplasmsDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMammographyPublicationsSurveys and QuestionnairesBreast cancerClassificationComputer-aided detection (CAD)Convolutional neural networks (CNNs)Deep learning (DL)Feature detectionMachine learning (ML)Mammograms (MGs)Transfer learning (TL)

Identifiers

PMID31167642
PMCPMC6551243
OpenAlexW2948732750

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.