ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2019
An automated mammogram classification system using modified support vector machine.
Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep-learning based adaptive fusion of CC and MLO views for improved mammographic cancer diagnosis.MethodsX · 2026Article
- From Machine Learning to Ensemble Approaches: A Systematic Review of Mammogram Classification Methods.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- New hybrid features extracted from US images for breast cancer classification.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Development of a machine learning predictive model for early detection of breast cancer.F1000Research · 2025Article
- An updated overview of radiomics-based artificial intelligence (AI) methods in breast cancer screening and diagnosis.Radiological physics and technology · 2024Review
- Usefulness of machine learning and deep learning approaches in screening and early detection of breast cancer.Heliyon · 2023Review
- Application of Machine Learning for Differentiating Bone Malignancy on Imaging: A Systematic Review.Cancers · 2023Review
- Enhancement of Mammographic Images Using Histogram-Based Techniques for Their Classification Using CNN.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- The Systematic Review of Artificial Intelligence Applications in Breast Cancer Diagnosis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Breast Cancer Detection in Mammogram Images Using K-Means++ Clustering Based on Cuckoo Search Optimization.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- AI in Breast Cancer Imaging: A Survey of Different Applications.Journal of imaging · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeBreast cancer remains a serious public health problem that results in the loss of lives among women. However, early detection of its signs increases treatment options and the likelihood of cure. Although mammography has been established to be a proven technique of examining symptoms of cancer in mammograms, the manual observation by radiologists is demanding and often prone to diagnostic errors. Therefore, computer aided diagnosis (CADx) systems could be a viable alternative that could facilitate and ease cancer diagnosis process; hence this study. METHODOLOGY: The inputs to the proposed model are raw mammograms downloaded from the Mammographic Image Analysis Society database. Prior to the classification, the raw mammograms were preprocessed. Then, gray level co-occurrence matrix was used to extract fifteen textural features from the mammograms at four different angular directions: θ={0°, 45°, 90°, 135°}, and two distances: D={1,2}. Afterwards, a two-stage support vector machine was used to classify the mammograms as normal, benign and malignant.
resultsAll of the 37 normal images used as test data were classified as normal (no false positive) and all 41 abnormal images were correctly classified to be abnormal (no false negative), meaning that the sensitivity and specificity of the model in detecting abnormality is 100%. After the detection of abnormality, the system further classified the abnormality on the mammograms to be either "benign" or "malignant". Out of 23 benign images, 21 were truly classified as benign. Also, out of 18 malignant images, 17 were truly classified to be malignant. From these findings, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the system are 94.4%, 91.3%, 89.5%, and 95.5%, respectively.
conclusionThis article has further affirmed the prowess of automated CADx systems as a viable tool that could facilitate breast cancer diagnosis by radiologists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.