ArticleEuropean radiology2020
Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: integration of image modalities enhances deep learning-based breast mass classification.
Article in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Deep learning, radiomics and radiogenomics applications in the digital breast tomosynthesis: a systematic review.BMC bioinformatics · 2023Pooled it
- Breast cancer detection and classification with digital breast tomosynthesis: a two-stage deep learning approach.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025Article
- Combining shallow and deep neural networks on pseudo-color enhanced images for digital breast tomosynthesis lesion classification.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- The top 100 most-cited articles on artificial intelligence in breast radiology: a bibliometric analysis.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
- Detection of breast cancer in digital breast tomosynthesis with vision transformers.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Breast Cancer Detection and Analytics Using Hybrid CNN and Extreme Learning Machine.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Emerging paradigms in microwave imaging technology for biomedical applications: unleashing the power of artificial intelligence.Npj imaging · 2024Review
- An Efficient Deep Neural Network to Classify Large 3D Images With Small Objects.IEEE transactions on medical imaging · 2024Article
- Clinical application of convolutional neural network for mass analysis on mammograms.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Virtual monochromatic images for coronary artery imaging with a spectral photon-counting CT in comparison to dual-layer CT systems: a phantom and a preliminary human study.European radiology · 2023Article
- A Competition, Benchmark, Code, and Data for Using Artificial Intelligence to Detect Lesions in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Identification of Luminal A breast cancer by using deep learning analysis based on multi-modal images.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Value of genomics- and radiomics-based machine learning models in the identification of breast cancer molecular subtypes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Automatic Classification of Simulated Breast Tomosynthesis Whole Images for the Presence of Microcalcification Clusters Using Deep CNNs.Journal of imaging · 2022Article
- The added value of an artificial intelligence system in assisting radiologists on indeterminate BI-RADS 0 mammograms.European radiology · 2022Article
- Deep Learning Application for Analyzing of Constituents and Their Correlations in the Interpretations of Medical Images.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Deep learning in breast radiology: current progress and future directions.European radiology · 2021Review
- Additive value of exposure parameters for breast cancer diagnosis in digital mammography.European radiology · 2021Article
- Deep Learning in Selected Cancers' Image Analysis-A Survey.Journal of imaging · 2020Review
- Mass Detection and Segmentation in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Using 3D-Mask Region-Based Convolutional Neural Network: A Comparative Analysis.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the impact of utilizing digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) or/and full-field digital mammography (FFDM), and different transfer learning strategies on deep convolutional neural network (DCNN)-based mass classification for breast cancer.
methodsWe retrospectively collected 441 patients with both DBT and FFDM on which regions of interest (ROIs) covering the malignant, benign and normal tissues were extracted for DCNN training and validation. Experiments were conducted for tasks in distinguishing malignant/benign/normal: (1) classification capabilities of DBT vs FFDM and the role of transfer learning were validated on 2D-DCNN; (2) different strategies of combining DBT and FFDM and the associated impacts on classification were explored; (3) 2D-DCNN and 3D-DCNN trained from scratch with volumetric DBT were compared.
results2D-DCNN with transfer learning outperformed that without for DBT in distinguishing malignant (ΔAUC = 0.059 ± 0.009, p < 0.001), benign (ΔAUC = 0.095 ± 0.010, p < 0.001) and normal tissue (ΔAUC = 0.042 ± 0.004, p < 0.001) (paired samples t test). 2D-DCNN trained on DBT (with transfer learning) achieved higher accuracy than those on FFDM (malignant: ΔAUC = 0.014 ± 0.014, p = 0.037; benign: ΔAUC = 0.031 ± 0.006, p < 0.001; normal: ΔAUC = 0.017 ± 0.004, p < 0.001) (independent samples t test). The 2D-DCNN employing both DBT and FFDM for training achieved better performances in benign (FFDM: ΔAUC = 0.010 ± 0.008, p < 0.001; DBT: ΔAUC = 0.009 ± 0.005, p < 0.001) and normal (FFDM: ΔAUC = 0.005 ± 0.003, p < 0.001; DBT: ΔAUC = 0.002 ± 0.002, p < 0.001) (related samples Friedman test). The 3D-DCNN and 2D-DCNN trained from scratch with DBT only produced moderate classification.
conclusionsTransfer learning facilitates mass classification for both DBT and FFDM, and DBT outperforms FFDM when equipped with transfer learning. Integrating DBT and FFDM in DCNN training enhances mass classification accuracy for breast cancer. KEY POINTS: • Transfer learning facilitates mass classification for both DBT and FFDM, and the DBT-based DCNN outperforms the FFDM-based DCNN when equipped with transfer learning. • Integrating DBT and FFDM in DCNN training enhances breast mass classification accuracy. • 3D-DCNN/2D-DCNN trained from scratch with volumetric DBT but without transfer learning only produce moderate mass classification result.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31691121What 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.