Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31603772›Full record

ArticleIEEE transactions on medical imaging2020

Deep Neural Networks Improve Radiologists' Performance in Breast Cancer Screening.

Nan Wu, Jason Phang, Jungkyu Park, Yiqiu Shen, Zhe Huang, Masha Zorin, Stanislaw Jastrzebski, Thibault Fevry, Joe Katsnelson, Eric Kim and 22 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 187 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
187citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

187 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. AI-assisted basal cell carcinoma diagnosis with LC-OCT: A multicentric retrospective study.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

127 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

32 authors.

Nan Wu
Jason Phang
Jungkyu Park
Yiqiu Shen
Zhe Huang
Masha Zorin
Stanislaw Jastrzebski
Thibault Fevry
Joe Katsnelson
Eric Kim
Stacey Wolfson
Ujas Parikh
Sushma Gaddam
Leng Leng Young Lin
Kara Ho
Joshua D Weinstein
Beatriu Reig
Yiming Gao
Hildegard Toth
Kristine Pysarenko
Alana Lewin
Jiyon Lee
Krystal Airola
Eralda Mema
Stephanie Chung
Esther Hwang
Naziya Samreen
S Gene Kim
Laura Heacock
Linda Moy
Kyunghyun Cho
Krzysztof J Geras

Funding

TR&D 4: Revealing Microstructure: Biophysical modeling and validation for discovery and clinical careP41EB017183 · NIBIB · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI Dmitry S Novikov · 2014 to 2026
$19.3M
Reducing recall rates of screening mammography with deep convolutional neural networkR21CA225175 · NCI · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI MOY, LINDA · 2018 to 2019
$395k
NCI NIH HHS R21 CA225175NIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB017183
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We present a deep convolutional neural network for breast cancer screening exam classification, trained, and evaluated on over 200000 exams (over 1000000 images). Our network achieves an AUC of 0.895 in predicting the presence of cancer in the breast, when tested on the screening population. We attribute the high accuracy to a few technical advances. 1) Our network's novel two-stage architecture and training procedure, which allows us to use a high-capacity patch-level network to learn from pixel-level labels alongside a network learning from macroscopic breast-level labels. 2) A custom ResNet-based network used as a building block of our model, whose balance of depth and width is optimized for high-resolution medical images. 3) Pretraining the network on screening BI-RADS classification, a related task with more noisy labels. 4) Combining multiple input views in an optimal way among a number of possible choices. To validate our model, we conducted a reader study with 14 readers, each reading 720 screening mammogram exams, and show that our model is as accurate as experienced radiologists when presented with the same data. We also show that a hybrid model, averaging the probability of malignancy predicted by a radiologist with a prediction of our neural network, is more accurate than either of the two separately. To further understand our results, we conduct a thorough analysis of our network's performance on different subpopulations of the screening population, the model's design, training procedure, errors, and properties of its internal representations. Our best models are publicly available at https://github.com/nyukat/breast_cancer_classifier.

Indexed as

Deep LearningBreastBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMammographyRadiologists

Identifiers

PMID31603772
PMCPMC7427471

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.